Skip to main content

Full text of "Smithsonian miscellaneous collections"

See other formats 




a 
RENUey sana 


, : f ‘ gf 4 i a i 5 yi , 5 : wD Sokal 
: eo Raph dia tol mamas ete r acre eee BE ; Saat sania 
i ay hades sc ae aieiarige lca ecu taoge ‘ rates Rae ort 








ibtcera rt 
CHa eP er ery 
is Ge ate Tuttle 


Ee 
eee 








a 














SMITHSONIAN 
MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 





22000000028 


““ EVERY MAN IS A VALUABLE MEMBER OF SOCIETY WHO, BY HIS OBSERVATIONS, RESEARCHES, 
AND EXPERIMENTS, PROCURES KNOWLEDGE FOR MEN ””__sSMITHSON 


(PUBLICATION 3648) 


CITY OF WASHINGTON 
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 
1941 


The Lord Baltimore Prees 


BALTIMORE, MD., U, 8. A. 


ADVERTISEMENT 


The Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections series contains, since the 
suspension in 1916 of the Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, 
all the publications of the Institution except the Annual Report, the 
annual volume describing the Institution’s field work, and occasional 
publications of a special nature. As the name of the series implies, its 
scope is not limited, and the volumes thus far issued relate to nearly 
every branch of science. Papers in the fields of biology, geology, 
anthropology, and astrophysics have predominated. 

C. G. Apsort, 
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. 


(111) 





CONTENTS 


OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 
ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


1. OPINIONS 68 TO 77. 73 pp., Jan. 31, 1922. (Publ. 2657.) 
2; (OPINIONS §—76.TO “SI. 32 pp., Heb. ©, 1024., (Publ. 2747.) 
3. Opinions 82 TO 90. 40 pp., Dec. 16, 1925. (Publ. 2830.) 
4. OPINIONS QI TO 97. 30 pp., Oct. 8, 1926. (Publ. 2873.) 
5. Opinions 98 TO 104. 28 pp., Sept. 19, 1928. (Publ. 2973.) 
6. OPINIONS 105 TO 114. 26 pp., June 8, 1929. (Publ. 3016.) 
7. OPINIONS II5 TO 123. 36 pp., Jan. 10, 1931. (Publ. 3072.) 
8. OPINIONS 124 TO 133. 44 pp., Oct. 28, 1936. (Publ. 3395.) 


(v) 





- 














SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 
VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1 


* 


OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE — 


OPINIONS 68 TO 77 ey 





(PUBLICATION 2657) 


CITY. OF WASHINGTON 


PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 
JANUARY 31, 1922 

















SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 
VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1 


OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


OPINIONS 68 TO 77 





(PUBLICATION 2657) 


CITY OF WASHINGTON 


PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 
JANUARY 31, 1922 


NOTICE 


Previous Opinions Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature have been issued as Special Publications of the Smithsonian 
Institution, unbound, as follows: 


Opinions I to 25, 1938, July, 1910 (out of print). 
a 26° “+20, 1980, October, 4010. ° 
“| 300% 13752013, July, 10110 nise alee 


# 38 51, 2000, Hebruary 012) 3s s 
52 “ 56, 2160, May, 1913 
57“ 165, 2256, March, ‘aor 
Opinion 66 2350, February, 1915 
*s 67 2400, April, 1916 
Beginning with the present issue, a volume of the Smithsonian Miscellaneous 
Collections will hereafter be reserved exclusively for the Opinions. 


The Lord Baltimore Press 


BALTIMORE, MD., U. S. A. 


OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 
OPINIONS 68 TO 77 


OPINION 68 
THE Type SPECIES OF PLEURONECTES LINN#US, 17584 
SUMMARY.—Fleming, 1828, p. 196, does not designate the type of Pleuronectes. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Chancellor David Starr Jordan has submitted 
the following case for opinion: 


tHE SDYPE OF PLEUKRONECTES L. 


The Linnean genus Pleuronectes, containing many species, was subdivided 
by Rafinesque, 1810, Indice d’Ittiologia Siciliana, pp. 14-15, and by Cuvier, 1817, 
Le Régne Animal, vol. 2, pp. 218-224. In neither case was the name Pleuro- 
nectes applied to any one of these subdivisions. Such application to a restricted 
group was first made by Fleming, 1828, pp. 196-199 (History of British 
Animals). He recognizes four genera of flounders, Pleuronectes, Solea 
(Rafinesque), Platessa (Cuvier), and Hippoglossus (Cuvier). The types of 
the last three genera are clearly Pleuronectes solea L., Pleuronectes platessa L., 
and Pleuronectes hippoglossus L. As to Pleuronectes Fleming says: 

“Gen. XLVI. Pxreuronectes. Turbot. Mouth entire; teeth numerous, 
slender. Lateral line curved. Eyes on the left side.” 

The five species named represent five modern genera, all allies of the turbot. 
Pleuronectes maximus L. is the type of the genus Psetta Swainson. 

The first species named by Fleming is “96, P. maximus. Common Turbot.” 

Under the rules of the Zoological Congress, does this act of Fleming restrict 
the name of Pleuronectes to the Turbot group? In this case later usage has 
made Pleuronectes maximus L., the Turbot, the type. 

Or does Fleming fail to fix the type? In this case we go on to Bleeker, 1862, 
Ppp. 422-429 (Versl. en Mededeel. Kon. Akad. Wetens. Amsterdam), who makes 
Pleuronectes synonymous with Platessa Cuvier, the type being Pleuronectes 
platessa L, In this Bleeker has been followed by common usage. 


Discussion.—It is to be noticed that Doctor Jordan does not ask 
the Commission to determine the type of Pleuronectes, but only 
whether Fleming in 1828 does, or does not, fix the type of this genus. 


SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS, VOL. 73, No. 1 


2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


The question at issue involves an interpretation of the expression 
used in Article 30g of the International Rules, reading : 

The meaning of the expression, “ select the type,” is to be rigidly construed. 
Mention of a species as an illustration or an example of a genus does not con- 
stitute a selection of a type 
as applied to Fleming’s action in 1828, p. 196. For earlier opinion on 
this general point (Art. 30g), see Opinion 45 (The Type of Syn- 
gnathus L. 1758), p. 103 (as applied to Rafinesque and Swainson). 

The details of the premises presented by Doctor Jordan are as 
follows: 

Linneus (1758a, pp. 268-271) included the following 16 species in 
his genus Pleuronectes: 1, achirus; 2, trichodactylus ; 3, lineatus; 4, 
ocellatus; 5, lunatus; 6, hippoglossus; 7, cynoglossus; 8, platessa; 9, 
flesus; 10, limanda; 11, solea; 12, linguatula; 13, rhombus ; 14, maxi- 
mus; 15, passer; 16, papillosus. 

Rafinesque (1810, pp. 14-15, and 52-53, Indice d’Ittiologia Sicil- 
iana) mentions under his sixth order, I Pleronetti, three genera, as 
being represented among the Sicilian fishes, as follows: 


VI. Orpine. I. PLeronettr. (Pages 14-15) 
45. Solea (Raf. app. gen. 4.) buglossa. Raf. (Pleuronectes solea Linn.) 

Sogliola comune. Linguata. a Messina Palaja. a Catania 
Linguatu. 

46. —— Limanda. Raf. (Pleuronectes Linguata Linn.) Sogliola 
limanda. Lema, 6 Lima, 6 Passari. 

47. —— Platessa. Raf. (Pl. platessa Linn.) Sogliola pianosa. 
Pianussu, 6 Passera. 


48. —— Rhomboide. Raf. app. sp. 6. (Pl. limanda. var. Lac.) Sogliola 
romboide. Rumbu impiriali. 

49. —— Cithara. Raf. app. sp. 7. Sogliola citara. Cantinu. 

50. —— pegusa. Raf. (PI. pegusa. Lac.) Sogliola pegusa. Linguata 
ucchiuta. . 

51. —— Arnoglossa. Raf. app. sp. 8. Sogliola arnaglossa. Linguata 
liscia. : 

52. —— cynoglossa. Raf. app. sp. 9. Sogliola linguacane. Linguata 
mavista. 


53. Scophthalmus (Raf. app. gen. 5.) maximus. (Pleuronectes maximus Linn.) 
Rombo massimo. Rumolo impiriali. 


54. —— Rhombus. Raf. (Pl. rhombus Linn.) Rombo comune. 
Rumbu, 6 Linguata masculu. a Messina Passera. 

55. —— diurus. Raf. app. sp. 10. Rombo doppiacoda. Rumbu dupi- 
acuda. . 


56. Bothus rumolo. Raf. car. gen. 23, sp. 54. Boto rumolo. Rumolo. a 
Catania Lumeru. 

Tappa. Raf. car. sp. 55. Boto tappa. Tappa. a Catania Panta. 

Imperialis. Raf. car. sp. 56. Boto imperiale. Tappa impiriali, 
6 Linguata impiriali. 





57: 
58. 





NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 3 


Thus, the genus Solea 1810 (see also Quensel, 1806, p. 230, genus 
Solea, with S. vulgaris, syn. Pleuronectes solea Linn.) contains the 
species Pleuronectes solea, which in 1806 and 1810 became the type of 
Solea by absolute tautonymy (Article 30d), and the Linnzean species 
Pleuronectes rhombus and Pleuronectes maximus were placed (1810) 
in Scophthalmus. 


Cuvier (1817, pp. 218-224, Régne Animal) distributes the Linnzan 
species of Pleuronectes L. as follows (‘‘ Nous les divisions comme il 
Suite, 

Pleuronectes [no species mentioned as type, and no subgenus mentioned as 
Pleuronectes]. 

subg. Platessa Cuvier, 1817, contains— 

La Plie franche ou Carrelet (Pleur. platessa L.) [type by absolute tau- 
tonymy]. 

Le Flet ou Picaud (Pleur, flesus L.). 

La Limande (Pleur, limanda L.). 

subg. Hippoglossus Cuvier, 1817, contains— 

Le Flétan (Pleuronectes hippoglossus) [type by absolute tautonymy], and 
several species in footnote. 

subg. Rhombus Cuvier, 1817 [not Rhombus Lacépéde, 1800, of which the type 

is alepidotus teste Jordan & Evermann, not Rhombus Da Costa, 1776, 
mollusk, not Rhombus Humph., 1797, mollusk, not Rhombus Montf., 
1810, mollusk], contains— 

Le Turbot (Pleuronectes maximus) (“Le pl. passer d’Artédi et de Linn. 
nest point different du turbot’). 

La Barbue (Pleuronectes rhombus) [type by absolute tautonymy]; he 
mentions also Pleuronectes nudus Risso, Diaphanus Sh., Arnoglossum 
Rondelet, and further, in footnote, several other species. 

subg. Solea Cuvier, 1817, containing— 

Pleuronectes solea L. [type by absolute tautonymy]. 

Pleuronectes cynoglossus L. 

subg. Monochires Cuvier, 1817 [not clear whether French or Latin], con- 

taining— 

Le Linguatula Rondelet (Pleuronectes microchirus). 

subg. Achirus Lacépéde, 1802, containing— 

Pleuronectes achirus L., and in footnote several other species including 
Pleuronectes lineatus [author not given]. 

subg. Plagusia Brown, 1756, not Plagusia Latreille, 1806, crustacean. 


Fleming, 1828,° “in the enumeration of British animals contained 
in this volume ” (p. xviii), “as a compiler” (p. xxi), gives descrip- 


*“History of British Animals, exhibiting the descriptive characters and 
systematical arrangement of the genera and species of quadrupeds, birds, 
reptiles, fishes, mollusca, and radiata of the United Kingdom; including the 
indigenous, extirpated, and extinct kinds, together with periodical and occa- 
sional visitors.” 


4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


tions, synonymy, and occurrence in British waters for the following 
fishes that come under consideration in connection with this case: 


g. 46. Pleuronectes. Turbot. [5 species reported. ] 
96. P. maximus. Common Turbot. 
97. P. rhombus. Brill. 


g. 47. Solea. Sole. [2 species reported.] 
101. S. vulgaris. Common sole. Syn. Pleuronectes solea Linn. 


g. 48. Platessa. Fluke. [5 species reported.] 
103. P. vulgaris. Plaise. Syn. Pleuronectes platessa Linn. 
104. P. fcsus. Flounder. Syn. Pleuronectes flesus Linn. 
105. P. limanda. Dab. Syn. Pleuronectes limanda Linn, 


g. 49. Hippoglossus. Holibut. [1 species reported.] 
108. H. vulgaris. Common holibut. Syn. Pleuronectes hippoglossus 
Linn. 


The author does not state in connection with any one of these four 
genera what species he accepts as type species. None of the five 
species mentioned under Pleuronectes appears, from the premises 
presented, to be the type of Pleuronectes by absolute tautonymy, but 
species No. 97, Pleuronectes rhombus, is type of Rhombus 1817 (not 
Rhombus Lacép, 1800), by absolute tautonymy, and both Pleu- 
ronectes maximus and Pleuronectes rhombus had been placed in the 
genus Scophthalmus by Rafinesque, 1810. The fact that Fleming 
gives the vernacular name “ Turbot ” to the genus Pleuronectes, and 
“Common Turbot” to the species Pleuronectes maximus, cannot, 
“rigidly construed,” be taken as designation of type. 

In the introduction to this work, Fleming (1828, p. xxi) states that 
his History (1828) “is destined to serve as an adjunct” to his Phil- 
osophy of Zoology (1822), and this statement leads the Secretary to 
consult said “ Philosophy,” in order to better understand the premises. 

Fleming (1822, v. 2, Philosophy of Zoology), in the general dis- 
cussion on nomenclature and species, says: 


p. 153, Where synonymes have unavoidably been created in consequence of the 
want of communication between distant observers, the rule uni- 
versally known, but not equally extensively observed, is to give the 
preference to the name first imposed. 

p. 157, Where useless changes are thus produced in nomenclature, their 
authors, and their names should be overlooked. 


In a number of places Fleming clearly determines the type species 
of a genus, for instance: 


p. 173,. 2. Mrmetes (of Dr. Leach), Chimpanze..... The Simia troglodytes 
of authors, is the type of the genus. 
3. StmraA. Orang-Outang..... The Simia Satyrus is the type. 


DP: 474, 13. LEMURS | 20... The Lemur Macaco is the type of this genus. 


NO.- I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 5 


In many cases Fleming simply mentions a single species under the 
genus without stating that it is the type. For instance: 
p. 178, 27. RHINOLOPHUS. .... Rh. ferrum equinum. 

28) NIVGEERTS, 6. << N. hispidus. 

The foregoing citations clearly show that Fleming had a distinct 
conception of the type species as we understand it to-day. 

The practical point arises whether Fleming intended that the citation 
of a single species should be accepted as a designation by him of the 
type species. If Fleming avers in any portion of his book that this 
interpretation is to be made, the Secretary has thus far been unable 
to find the statement. The general tendency of the entire work toward 
the naming of a type species is, however, striking for a book published 
in 1822, and the temptation is very great indeed to make the interpre- 
tation that Fleming actually intended to designate a type species for 
nearly every genus he mentioned. 

In his Philosophy, Fleming (1822, vol. 2) refers to Pleuronectes 
as follows: 

p. 388, 64. Preuronectes. With pectoral fins. This genus includes 1. Pleuro- 
nectes (P. platessa). 2. Hippoglossus (R. [P.] hippoglossus). 
3. Rhombus (P. maximus). 4. Solea (P. solea). 
65. Acuirus. Destitute of pectoral fins. Pleuronectes achirus. 

The point is to be noticed that in 1822 Fleming used Pleuronectes for 
Pleuronectes platessa, and Rhombus for Pleuronectes maximus, while 
in 1828 he changed his view and used Pleuronectes for Pleuronectes 
maximus and Pleuronectes rhombus, but he placed Pleuronectes 
platessa in the genus Platessa. 

Accordingly the premise presented by Doctor Jordan that Fleming 
(1828, 196-199) was the first to restrict the name Pleuronectes to a 
subdivision of the original genus is found to be erroneous. Such 
restriction appears to have been made at least as early as 1822 by 
Fleming, and his 1822 action was reversed in 1828. 

It will be noticed that Fleming in 1822 adopted the four subgeneric 
groups used by Cuvier, 1817, and that he corrected the nomenclatural 
error of Cuvier, in that Fleming recognized Pleuronectes for one of 
the subgenera, namely, for that group which Cuvier named Platessa, 
and the type of which by absolute tautonymy is Pleuronectes platessa. 
The question is: Did Fleming here select platessa as type of Pleuro- 
nectes s. str.? 

At least four views are possible: 

(1) Type by inclusion—By the principle of “type by inclusion” 
platessa would become, ipso facto, the type of Pleuronectes s. str., 
because Pleuronectes s. str., here clearly includes Platessa 1817, for 


6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


which platessa is type by tautonymy. But the proposal to insert into 
Art. 30 the principle of “ type by inclusion ” was rejected by the Com- 
mission at its Boston meeting. 

(2) Typical subgenus —The view might be advanced that Fleming 
here proposed, apparently for the first time, the typical subgenus 
Pleuronectes, and that by citing only the name Pleuronectes platessa, 
he designated the type by monotypy. Art. 30c. 

(3) Type oy renaming.—The view might be advanced that Fleming 
deliberately renamed Platessa 1817, for which the type had already 
been determined by absolute tautonymy, hence that platessa became 
automatically type of Pleuronectes s. str. Art. 30f. 

(4) Type by monotypy.—The view might be advanced that Flem- 
ing, by quoting only platessa under Pleuronectes, definitely intended 
to take this as type. 

In respect to this last view (4) different authors might differ in 
opinion, for the point might be advanced that Fleming did not dispose 
of all the original species of Pleuronectes 1758, and that he simply 
mentioned platessa as an example of Pleuronectes s. str., hence, that 
“\rigidly construed ” this is not a type selection. 

Nevertheless, from the premises here presented it seems clear that 
Fleming, 1822, actually did propose the typical subgenus of Pleuro- 
nectes, that he correctly named this subgenus as Pleuronectes, and that 
he mentioned only one species (platessa) as representative of this 
typical subgenus. Accordingly, unless there are important reasons 
to the contrary, it would seem best to take platessa as type of Pleuro- 
nectes. 

While the evidence seems to point to the conclusion that platessa 
should be taken as type species of Pleuronectes on basis of Fleming 
(1822, p. 388), it seems wise, in view of the possibility of a difference 
of opinion (4), to follow the case further in order to see how the views 
given under (2) and (3) would coincide with the later history of the 
generic name. 

Without entering upon a detailed discussion of this very confused 
case of nomenclature, which involves many references in addition to 
those cited by Doctor Jordan, attention is invited to the facts that— 

(a) Fleming’s action in 1822 in substituting Pleuronectes for 
Cuvier’s genus Platessa, 1817, is followed by Bleeker (1862), Giinther 
(1862), Leunis (1883), and Claus (1895), while Jordan’ and Ever- 
mann (1898), and Apstein (1915) definitely mention Pleuronectes 
platessa as the type of Pleuronectes, and 


*Jordan (1917a, 13, The genera of fishes) accepts platessa as type of 
Pleuronectes. 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 7 


(b) On the other hand Fleming’s action of 1828 in placing Pleu- 
ronectes rhombus and Pleuronectes maximus in the genus Pleuro- 
nectes is followed later by Fleming (1842), while Jordan & Goss 
(1889) definitely designate Pleuronectes maximus as type of Pleuro- 
nectes. 

In answering Doctor Jordan’s question, the Commission is of the 
opinion that Fleming’s action of 1828 (pp. 196-199) is not to be con- 
strued as fixing the type of Pleuronectes. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, Bather, 
Blanchard, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), 
Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, 4 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Kolbe, Roule, Simon. 

The foregoing Opinion was submitted to all Commissioners for vote 
and to more than 350 zoologists, zoological laboratories, colleges, and 
scientific institutions for comment. No adverse criticism has been 
received by the Secretary, but the following comments have been sent 
to him: 

Commissioner Allen: It seems to me that Fleming in 1822, by 
including only Pleuronectes platessa L. in his subgenus Pleuronectes, 
distinctly indicates, in view of his clear recognition of the need of type 
designations, that he regarded P. platessa L. as the type and that his 
action in 1828 has not necessarily any bearing on the case. 

Commissioner Bather: I agree with the conclusion arrived at, but 
I am perhaps more influenced in coming to the conclusion by the fact 
that Fleming’s book of 1828 was professedly a history of British 
animals only, and that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary 
it should be so accepted. Therefore, quite apart from the existence 
of the 1822 work, I should not regard Fleming as fixing types in 1828. 

Commissioner Hartert: It is clear that Fleming did nor formally 
fix the types in this case, which is perfectly parallel to that of the 
genera of the swallows of Forster, 1817. I accepted Forster’s genera, 
but the A. O. U. and as competent nomenclaturists of England and 
Germany disagreed with my action, holding that Forster did not 
formally designate the type of Hirundo. 

Commissioner Hoyle: Fleming, 1828, did not fix the type of Pleu- 
ronectes, but I am inclined to think (from the data given) that he 
made platessa the type in 1822. 

Commissioner D. S. Jordan: I think both cases [Pleuronectes and 
Sparus| practically above question—fortunately coinciding with 
usage. 


8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Commissioner Stejneger: I hold that Fleming, in 1822, actually 
designated the types | for Pleuronectes and Sparus] as understood in 
the International Code of Nomenclature. 

Doctor Pappenheim (Berlin) studied the case, upon the request of 
Commissioner Kolbe, and presented to him the following memo- 
randum: 

Ich schlage vor die Fischgattungsnamen “ Pleuronectes L.” und 
“ Sparus L.” unbedingt zu verwerfen und durch Platessa Cuv. und 
Chrysophrys Cuv. zu ersetzen. Als Type fur die Gattung Platessa 
hat nach meiner Auffassung die Art Pl. platessa (L.), fiir Chryso- 
phrys die Art aurata (L.) zu gelten. 

Die gegenteiligen Ansichten konnten sich m. M. nur auf Fleming 
sttitzen, dessen Arbeiten ein systematischer Wert nicht zukommt. 
Anderseits geniigt zur Begriindung der Wahrung der von Cuvier auf- 
gestellten Namen das in den Anlagen (Letter No. 27 und No. 28) 
gegebene Material. 

Eine Notwendigkeit, bei Verwerfung der Namen “ Pleuronectes’ 
und “ Sparus” und auch die Familien Namen “ Pleuronectide” und 
“ Sparid”’ aus nomenclatorischer Griinden zu verwerfen, liegt m. 
M. n. nicht vor, wie ich tiberhaupt der Meinung bin, dass die angeblich 
allgemein giltigen, weit international festgelegten Nomenclaturregeln 
in begriindeten Fallen, wie den beiden vorliegenden aus systematisch- 
morphologischen Grtinden vernachlassigt werden konnen. 

Ich werde jedenfalls in Zukunft ohne Ruchtsicht auf etwaige gegen- 
seitige Entscheidungen der Kommission die Namen “ Pleuronectes” 
und “ Sparus” nicht mehr anwenden. 

William C. Kendall, Lewis Radcliffe, and Hugh M. Smith (U. S. 
Fish Commission) unite in the conclusion that Fleming (1822) should 
be regarded as having designated platessa as the type of Pleuronectes 
and the fact that the disposal of the matter otherwise in 1828 should 
not affect the question; that if, however, Fleming or other authors 
cannot be accepted, the question lies between Swainson (1839, v. 2, 
p. 302) and Bleeker (1862, 428), and that Bleeker does not designate 
the type in the sense that the exact rule of the Zoological Congress 
seems to require any more specifically than was evidently intended by 
Swainson. 

Miss Mary J. Rathbun: My opinion is that platessa should be 
regarded as the type of Pleuronectes by action of Fleming in 1822, and 
that Fleming 1828, 196, does not designate the type of Pleuronectes. 

Favorable replies have been received also from: P. P. Calvert, 
C. Tate Regan, A. A. Tyler, and H. L. Viereck. 

Oldfield Thomas: The tendency of the proposed answers appears to 
be that Fleming’s 1822 quotations of species should be accepted as 
genuine selections, a view with which I agree. 


> 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 9 


OPINION 69 
THE Type SPECIES OF Sparus LInN=us, 1758 
SUMMARY.—Fleming, 1828, 211, does not designate the type of Sparus. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Chancellor David Starr Jordan has sub- 
mitted the following case for opinion: 


THE TYPE OF SPARUS L. 


The genus Sparus L. was subdivided by Cuvier (1817, vol. 2, pp. 271-274, 
Régne Animal), who failed to retain the name for any of its parts. 

Fleming (1828, pp. 211-212, History of British Animals) recognized three 
genera among the Linnzan species—Sparus, Pagrus Cuvier (Sparus pagrus 
L.) and Dentex Cuvier (Sparus dentex L.). Under Sparus he says: 

“Gen. LXVII. Sparus, GIrtHEAD. Four or six teeth in each jaw, in one 
row; the rest of the jaw paved with large round teeth, with blunt summits.” 

One species is mentioned, Sparus aurata L., which is the common “ Gilt- 
head,” the type of Chrysophrys Cuvier, 1817, and of Aurata Risso, 1826. 

Does this constitute a restriction of Sparus to S. aurata? Common usage 
so regards it. Later authors have proposed to use the name for other Lin- 
nan species of Sparus. 

The other species, formerly referred to Sparus, are never called “ Gilthead.” 


Discusston.—The case of Sparus involves the same principles as 
the case of Pleuronectes (see Opinion 68). 

The details of the premises presented by Doctor Jordan are as 
follows: 

Linneus (1758a, pp. 277-282, Systema Naturz) included in the 
genus Sparus 22 species, as follows: 1, aurata; 2, annularis ; 3, sargus ; 
4, melanurus; 5, smaris; 6, mena; 7, saxatilis; 8, orphus; 9, hurta; 
10, erythrinus; 11, pagrus; 12, boops; 13, cantharus; 14, chromis; 15, 
salpa; 16, synagris; 17, dentex ; 18, spinus ; 19, virginicus ; 20, mormy- 
rus; 21, capistratus ; 22, galileus. 

Cuvier (1817, vol. 2, pp. 268-272, Regne Animal) distributed 
original Linnzan species among the following systematic units : 
PERCOIDES 

g. Smaris Cuvier, 1817 [not Smaris Latreille, 1796, arach.], including— 

Sparus mena L. 
Sparus smaris L. [type by absolute tautonymy], together with certain 
other species mentioned in footnote. 

g. Boops Cuvier, 1817, including— 

Sparus salpa L. 


Sparus melanurus L. 
Sparus boops L. [type by absolute tautonymy]. 


10 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


ge. Sparus Cuvier, 1817. [Cf. Sparus Linn., 1758.] (“Que je réduits aux 
espéces de l’ancien genre de ce nom, dont les machoires peu 
extensibles sont garnies, sur les cOtes, de molaires rondes, 
semblables a des pavés. Ils vivent généralement de fucus. 
Je les subdivise comme il suit”) : 
[subg.] Sargus Cuvier, 1817 [not Sargus Fabr., 1798, dipteron], con- 
taining— 
La Sargue ordinaire (Splarus] sargus L.) [type by absolute 
tautonymy]. 
[subg.] Les Daurades [Latin name not given], containing— 
La Daurade ordinaire (Sp[arus] aurata L.), together with several 
other species mentioned in footnote. 
[subg.] Pagrus Cuvier, 1817, containing— 
Le Pagre ordinaire (Sp[arus] argenteus Schn.) [=pagrus Linn., 
teste Jordan and Evermann]. 
Le Pagel (Splarus] erythrinus L.), and 3 species in footnote. 
g. Dentex Cuvier, 1817, containing— 
Le Denté ordinaire (Sp[arus] dentex L.) [type by absolute tau- 
tonymy], and several species mentioned in footnote. 
g. Cantharus Cuvier, 1817 [not Cantharus Bolt, 1798, mollusk, not Can- 
tharus Montf., 1808, mollusk], containing— 
Le Canthére ordinaire (Sp[arus] cantharus L.) [type by absolute 
tautonymy], and several species in footnote. 


Fleming (1828, pp. 211-212, History of British Animals) reports 
and describes the following original Linnzean species of the genus 
Sparus for Great Britain: 


g. 47. Sparus Gilthead. [1 species reported.] 

136, S. aurata. 
g. 48. Pagrus Braize. [2 species reported. | 

137, P. vulgaris. Common Braize. Syn. Sparus pagrus Linn. 
g. 49. Dentex. [1 species reported.] 

139, D. vulgaris. Syn. Sparus dentex Linn. 


The author does not state in connection with any one of these three 
genera what species he accepts as type species ; but Sparus pagrus had 
become the type of Pagrus in 1817, by absolute tautonymy (argen- 
teus= pagrus, see Jordan and Evermann, 1898). Sparus dentex had 
become the type of Dentex in 1817, by absolute tautonymy. Sparus 
aurata does not appear, from the premises presented, to be the type of 
Sparus by absolute tautonymy, but Cuvier, 1817, had placed Sparus 
aurata in the genus Sparus, subgenus Les Daurades (no Latin name 
used), to which subgenus Cuvier later (1829) gives the name Chryso- 
phris (=Chrysophrys, 1830), of which it was the first species men- 
tioned. Prior to this date (1829), however, Fleming (1822, Philoso- 
phy of Zoology) had adopted three of Cuvier’s subgenera of Sparus, 


NO.. I % OPINIONS 68 TO 77 II 


and had retained for Les Daurades the subgeneric name Sparus, as 

shown in the following quotation: 

p. 392, 92. Sparus. Teeth on the sides round, with flat summits. Jaws nearly 
fixed. 1. Sargus (S. sargus). 2. Sparus (S. aurata). 3. Pagrus 
(S. pagrus). 

Accordingly, the premises presented by Doctor Jordan appear to be 
incomplete, for Fleming’s action of 1828 in adopting Sparus for 
Sparus aurata is virtually simply an adoption of his action of 1822. 

The same question and the same possibilities of interpretation now 
arise in respect to Fleming’s action of 1822 in regard to Sparus, that 
arose in connection with his action of 1822 in regard to Pleuronectes 
(see Opinion No. 68, The Type of Pleuronectes L.). 

While the evidence in the foregoing seems to point to the conclusion 
that aurata should be taken as type species of Sparus on basis of Flem- 
ing 1822, p. 392, it seems wise, in view of the possibility of a difference 
of opinion in regard to the interpretation, to follow the case further, 
in order to see how this view would coincide with the later history of 
the generic name. 

Without entering upon a detailed discussion of this case, which 
involves many references in addition to those cited by Doctor Jordan, 
attention is invited to the facts that— 

(a) Fleming’s action of 1822 in retaining Sparus for the species 
Sparus aurata is followed by Fleming, 1828, and Fleming, 1842°*; and 

(b) Cuvier’s action of 1829 in placing the species Sparus aurata in 
the genus Chrysophris, 1829 (Chrysophrys, 1830) is followed by 
Swainson (1829), Cuvier & Valenciennes (1830), Burmeister (1837) 
who gives Sparus Linn. as synonym, Ginther (1859), Ludwig’s Leunis 
(1883), Claus (1885), Knauer (1887), R. Blanchard (1890), and 
Railliet (1895), while Apstein (1915a), definitely designates Sparus 
aurata as type of Chrysophrys. 

From the two quotations given in the foregoing—1822 and 1828— 
it will be seen that in 1828 Fleming is simply reporting the presence 
of Sparus aurata in British waters, and that, “ rigidly construed,” he 
does not here designate a type species for the genus Sparus, but in 
1822 he distinctly recognizes a typical subgenus (Sparus s. str.) to 
include Cuvier’s 1817 “ Les Daurades.” Cuvier’s 1829 genus Chryso- 
phris (1830 Chrysophrys), therefore,.includes Fleming’s 1822 typical 
subgenus Sparus. 

In answering the question presented by Doctor Jordan, the Com- 
mission is therefore of the opinion that Fleming, 1828, p. 211, did 


* Also Jordan (1917a, 13, The genera of fishes). 


12 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


not designate the type for Sparus aurata for British waters, and that 
in using the generic name Sparus for the species Sparus aurata, he 
simply acted nomenclaturally in accordance with his action of 1822. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, 
Bather, Blanchard, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan 
(D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, 4 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Kolbe, Roule, Simon. 

The foregoing Opinion was submitted to all Commissioners for 
vote and to more than 350 zoologists, zoological laboratories, colleges, 
and scientific institutions for comment. No adverse criticism has 
been received by the Secretary, but the following comments have been 
sent to him: 

Commissioner Allen: Again it seems to me that Fleming may be 
correctly assumed to have fixed the type of Sparus in 1822 (by mono- 
typy) as Sparus aurata Linn. Fleming’s Sparus (1822 and 1828) = 
Les Daurades Cuvier (1817), to which Fleming appears to have been 
the first to assign a name, selecting Sparus for it. 

While Fleming did not formally, or in the strict sense of Article 30 
of the International Code, designate a type for either Pleuronectes or 
Sparus, I should not in the least hesitate, were I forced to give a 
decision in the case, to decide that, for all practical purposes, Fleming 
did indicate Pl. platessa L. as the type of Pleuronectes, and Sp. aurata 
L. as the type of Sparus; at least I should hold that such a decision 
was warranted by usage and in harmony with many precedents. 

Commissioners Bather, Hartert, D. S. Jordan, and Stejneger: Same 
remarks as under Opinion 68. 

Commissioner Hoyle: As regards Sparus, I am not clear about the 
action of Cuvier, 1817. If an author divides the genus and does not 
retain the original name for one of the parts, does not that render 
his action null and void? Or can we pick out one of his parts, apply 
the old name to that and neglect his new one? 

Favorable opinions have been received from: P. P. Calvert, Barton 
W. Evermann, W. C. Kendall, Lewis Radcliffe, Hugh M. Smith, 
Oldfield Thomas, A. A. Tyler, and H. L. Viereck. 

Miss Mary J. Rathbun: Also that aurata became the type of 
Sparus in 1822 by Fleming, and, therefore, he did not designate the 
type of that genus in 1828. 

Doctor Pappenheim: See remarks under Opinion 68. 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 13 


OPINION 70 


‘THE Case oF LIBELLULA AMERICANA L., 1758, vs. LIBELLULA 
AMERICANUS Drury, 1773 


SUMMARY.—In view of the fact that Libellula americanus Drury, 1773, is an 
evident lapsus calami for Gryllus americanus, the lapsus is to be corrected, 
and the specific name in this instance, americanus 1773, is not invalidated by 
Libellula americana 1758. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—A. N. Caudell presents the following case 
for opinion: 

Shall the specific name americanus Drury, 1773, be suppressed in favor of 
serialis Thunberg, 1815? 

The pertinent references are: 

' 1770, Drury, Illustrations of Nat. Hist., vol. 1, plate 49. 

1771, Linneus, Mantissa Plantarum, p. 533. 
1773, Drury, Illustrations of Nat. Hist., vol. 1, index. 
1815, Thunberg, Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci., St. Petersb., vol. 5, p. 241. 

Drury, 1770, figured two locusts, but used no names except an indication that 
figure 2 of the plate was related to [or identical with*] Gryllus tartaricus of 
Linnzus. 

Linneus, 1771, refers to the above plate by Drury, and names figure I as 
Gryllus ? squarrosus. 

Drury, 1773, in index, refers to the above work of Linnzus, quoting the 
name squarrosus, but the species is placed under the generic name Libellula. 
No. 2 of the plate is here given the specific name americanus and is, like the 
name squarrosus Linn., placed under Libellula. 

Thunberg, 1815, described the species Gryllus serialis, which has been 
found to be a synonym of the above americanus of Drury. 

In the tenth edition of Linnzus’ Systema Nature, there is described a true 
dragon fly under the name Libellula americana, and thus the above combina- 
tion of Libellula americanus by Drury apparently makes the latter a primary 
homonym. However, this inclusion of this species by Drury in the genus 
Libellula seems to be an error, or lapsus calami, for the following reason: 

1. The insect Gryllus tartaricus of Linnzeus, which Drury mentions in 1770 
as related to his figure 2, is a locust, that is, the genus Gryllus as then used. 

2. In the index of vol. 1 of Drury’s Illustrations in 1773, mention is made 
of the reference of squarrosus to the genus Gryllus by Linneus in 1771, and in 
the absence of other evidence there seems no reason to think Drury intended 
other than to follow him; squarrosus is figure 1 of the plate, and the second 
figure, americanus, also a locust, would clearly be treated the same. 

3. The termination of the two species as appearing in the index, 1773, is 
“us,” an ending agreeing with Gryllus but not with Libellula. It is to be noted, 
however, that Drury is not consistent in his termination, as in the index the 
names cincta and squamosus are included under the genus Vespa. 


*“T have not seen it anywhere described unless the insect mentioned by 
Linneus .... is the same with this.” 


I4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


4. The previous plate, no. 48, contains only dragon flies, that is, the genus 
Libellula, and the mistake of failing to change the name of the genus to 
Gryllus for the species figured on plate 49, either by the author or the type- 
setter, seems easy. 

5. Drury was an entomologist and one not likely to mistake a locust for a 
dragon fly, and thus not liable to place this large grasshopper in a Neuropterous 
genus. 

The above reasons make it quite clear that the inclusion of americanus, at 
its first appearance, in the genus Libellula was an error or a lapsus calami, and 
Art. I9 is apparently an authority for setting aside such reference. 


Discuss1on.—The Secretary has, in the presence of A. N. Caudell, 
verified the facts submitted in respect to Libellula americanus Drury, 
1773, index, as applied to plate 40, figure 2, of Drury, 1770, and is con- 
vinced that a lapsus for Gryllus americanus is present. 

The portions of the Code which come into consideration in this case 
are as follows: 


ARTICLE 35.—A specific name is to be rejected as a homonym (1) when 
it has previously been used for some other species of the same genus. Ex- 
amples: Tenia ovilla Rivolta, 1878 (n. sp.), is rejected as homonym of 
T. ovilla Gmelin, 1790. 

ARTICLE 19.—The original orthography of a name is to be preserved unless 
an error of transcription, a lapsus calami, or a typographical error is evident. 


In the Code of the American Ornithologists’ Union, 1892, p. 47, 
Canon 33, which corresponds to Articles 34 and 35 of the International 
Code, reads as follows: 


A generic name is to be changed which has previously been used for some 
other genus in the same kingdom; a specific or subspecific name is to be changed 
when it has been applied to some other species of the same genus, or used 
previously in combination with the same generic name. [Italics not in the 
original. ] 


By a strict construction of Canon 33 of the A. O. U. Code, the inter- 
pretation might be made that Libellula americanus 1773, even though 
a lapsus, is invalidated by Libellula americana 1758. 

The case in question is one of several of its kind that has come to 
the attention of the Secretary, but this is the first instance in which 
the Commission has been requested to render a definite opinion upon 
cases of this nature. 


*A reference to Drury, 1782 (Illustrations of Nat. Hist., vol. 3, p. xviii, 
footnote), has been brought to the attention of the Secretary. This reads: 
“The reader is desired to correct an error in the index, where this and the 
following insect are ranked among the Libellula, but should be among the 
Grilli Locusta’ This quotation supports the opinion as written. 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 15 


It is clearly the intent of the International Code, as shown by Article 
1g, to permit the correction of an evident error of transcription, a 
lapsus calami or a typographical error, and upon basis of this intention 
the Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt as its opinion 
the following: 

In view of the fact that Libellula americanus Drury, 1773, is an 
evident lapsus calami for Gryllus americanus, the lapsus is to be cor- 
rected, and the specific name in this instance, americanus 1773, is not 
invalidated by Libellula americana 1758. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 15 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, 
Bather, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, 
Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (Ix.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, 
Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, 3 Commissioners: Kolbe, Roule, Simon. 

Bather agrees with the conclusion but submits evidence from Dur- 
rant contained in footnote, p. 73. 

Hartert adds: The Commission has nothing to do with the A. O. U. 
Code. 

K. Jordan adds: Article 35 is not clear. The expression “ pre- 
viously used for some other species in the same genus ”’ is too general. 
It should be stated that the species new at the time and published in 
combination with the “ same generic name ”’ are meant. 


bo 


16 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


OPINION 71 


INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPRESSION “ TyPICAL SPECIES” IN 
WEstwoop’s (1840) SyNopPSsis. 


SUMMARY.—The species cited by Westwood, 1840 (An Introduction to the 
Modern Classification of Insects, vol. 2, Synopsis, separate pagination, pages 
1 to 158), as “typical species” are to be accepted as definite designations of 
genotypes for the respective genera. The question whether any given species 
under consideration represents the valid genotype or not is dependent upon two 
points: First, whether the species was available as genotype and, second, 
whether this designation in 1840 is antedated by some other designation. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—J. C. Crawford and Chas. H. T. Townsend 
have requested an Opinion upon the question whether the species cited 
by Westwood (1840) in his Synopsis, and designated “ Typical 
species ” are to be accepted as types of the genera in question. Dr. 
Townsend’s presentation of the case reads as follows: 


J. O. Westwood published in volume 2 of his Introduction to the Modern 
Classification of Insects, in 1840, under the title of “ Synopsis of the Genera 
of British Insects,” 158 octavo pages of generic diagnoses, including a specific 
name with each genus. With reference to the function of this specific name, 
we find footnote on first page stating that following data are given in first 
line of each genus: “1. Name of the genus; 2. Name of its founder; 3. 
Synonym of the genus; 4. Author of the synonymical genus; 5. Number of 
British species; 6. Typical species; 7. Reference to the best figure.” 

It is plainly evident that this “ Synopsis ” is entirely restricted to the British 
species, and that the selection of the “typical species” has necessarily been 
restricted in each case to the British fauna, thereby resulting often in a geno- 
type that is not typical in the sense of the founder of the genus. 

Does the Commission rule that mention in this “ Synopsis” of the “ typical 
species,” meaning unquestionably “typical British species,” constitutes a valid 
designation of genotype? 

Westwood makes the following statement in the preface (p. vi, vol. 1) to 
his “Introduction”: 

“ At the same time, in order that this work may serve as a precursor to the 
works of Curtis, Stephens, &c., I have added a synopsis of the British genera, 
brought down to the present time. The idea of the addition of this synopsis 
was derived from Latreille’s ‘“ Considérations Générales,” in which the genera 
are shortly characterised, and the names of the typical species given in an 
Appendix. ‘The additions of generic synonymes, references to generic figures, 
and indications of the number of British species, will render the synopsis more 
complete, although it must be evident that it can serve but as a guide to more 
extended research.” 


Covkt. ical 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 17 


Discussion.—The question has been submitted by the Secretary of 
this Commission to the Secretary of the International Commission on 
Entomological Nomenclature, who has reported as follows: 

Although some members of the Entomological Committee are of opinion 
that Westwood did not mean to designate genotypes in the modern sense, 
it is unanimously agreed that the species mentioned by Westwood under a 
genus should be considered genotype, if it was originally included in the genus, 
and if no genotype has been designated prior to Westwood. 

That some authors have used the expression ‘‘ Typical species ” 
simply in the sense of a characteristic example of a genus, and that 
others have used it in the sense of “ Type species,’ seems quite clear. 
Accordingly each paper must be judged separately in deciding whether 
the case in question fulfills the requirements of the Code that ‘“ the 
meaning of the expression ‘ select the type ” is to be rigidly construed. 
Mention of a species as an illustration or example of a genus does not 
constitute a selection of a type.” 

In connection with Westwood’s Synopsis, there are two points of 
evidence that seem to come into special consideration in arriving at an 
interpretation of his use of the expression “ Typical species.” 

First, Westwood (18309, vol. 1, p. vi, Introduction to Modern Classi- 
fication of Insects) distinctly states that “ The idea of the addition of 
this synopsis was derived from Latreille’s Considérations Générales, 
in which the genera are shortly characterised, and the names of the 
typical species given in an Appendix”; accordingly Westwood 
intended that his Synopsis with “ Typical species ”’ should correspond 
to Latreille’s ““ Table des genres avec l’indication de l’espéce qui leur 
sert de type” [italics not in the original]. 

The Commission has already adopted the Opinion (no. II, pp. 
17-18) that Latreille’s Table . ... “should be accepted as desig- 
nation of types of the genera in question (Art. 30).” Accordingly, 
since Westwood definitely states that his idea was obtained from 
Latreille’s (1810) publication, it would appear logical to conclude that 
Westwood’s (1840) Synopsis also is to be construed as designation 
of genotype. 

Second: The foregoing interpretation of Westwood’s citation 
receives support in the fact that in his Synopsis (see the case of 
Demetrias) he cites the original generic name under which the species 
was published. For instance, on p. 1, he gives the following: 
“ Demetrias Bonelli. Rhyzophilus Leach. 4 sp. Carab. atricapillus 
Linn.” This is a method of citation very common among authors 
who are designating genotypes, but it is relatively uncommon when an 
author is simply citing a species as an example of a genus. In the 


18 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


latter case it is usually the custom to cite the specific name only in 
combination with the name of the genus for which it is quoted as an 
example. 

On the basis of the foregoing premises the Secretary recommends 
that the Commission confirm the report from the Entomological Com- 
mission, and adopt as its opinion the following : 

The species cited by Westwood, 1840 (An Introduction to the 
Modern Classification of Insects, vol. 2, Synopsis, separate pagination, 
pages I to 158), as “ Typical species ” are to be accepted as definite 
designations of genotypes for the respective genera. The question 
whether any given species under consideration represents the valid 
genotype or not is dependent upon two points: First, whether the 
species was available as genotype, and second, whether this desig- 
nation in 1840 is antedated by some other designation. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Allen, Bather, Blan- 
chard, Dautzenberg, Handlirsch, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), 
Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by 1 Commissioner: Apstein. 

Not voting, 3 Commissioners: Kolbe, Roule, Simon. : 

Apstein signs the concurrence in the Opinion but adds: Ich halte 
es ausgeschlossen dass Westwood Type in unserem jetzigen Sinne 
gemeint hat. Sind Typen bis jetzt bestimmt, so sollen sie nicht zu 
Gunsten von Westwood geandert werden, wenn sie auch erst zwischen 
1840-1916 bestimmt sind. [In the last line of the Opinion Apstein 
inserts between the words “ other ” and “ designation ” the expression 
“auch spateren (als 1840)”; thus in reality he dissents from the 
Opinion.—C, W. S.] 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 19 


OPINION 72 
HERRERA’S ZOOLOGICAL FORMULZ 


SUMMARY.—Designations of animals, according to the system proposed by 
Herrera in the case submitted for Opinion, are formule, and not names. Ac- 
cordingly they have no status in Nomenclature, and are therefore not subject 
to consideration under the Law of Priority. No author is under obligation to 
cite these designations in any table of synonymy, index, or other list of names. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—W. Dwight Pierce submits the following 
case for opinion: 


Herrera, in 1900, proposed to prefix all zoological generic names with a 
syllable to indicate class, and to terminate them with “us” or “s,” and to place 


behind them certain initials further to assist in locating the genus: J/nsapis 
mellifica (I, Hy, A). 


Discussion.—The foregoing case was submitted, for consideration 
and report, to the International Commission on Entomological Nomen- 
clature, from the Secretary (Karl Jordan) of which the following 
report has been received: 


The case, though based on insects, is of a general nature, and therefore one 
for the Commission to deal with. It has been submitted to European Ento- 
mological Committees only. Ten members have given their opinion, All 
agree as follows: 

According to Herrera’s own showing, the names of the genera are Apis, 
Musca, Otus, etc. If any of these names should be preoccupied, the formule 
Insmuscas, Insbombyxus, etc., cannot be considered as replacing preoccupied 
names. If Herrera has published such a formula as a title for a new genus 
(Insexus), Exus should be regarded as the name of the new genus. In 
quoting literally from the work of Herrera, the formula “ Insbombyxus” 
should be placed between inverted commas, “....”: “Jnsmuscas” domes- 
tica, without the initials following in Herrera’s formula. If the quotation is 
not literal, Musca, Bombyx, etc., should be used. 

Kae 


The Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature concurs in general with the foregoing report, but invites 
attention to certain features of the case submitted. 

In principle, according to the premises submitted, the designations 
by Herrera are of essentially the same kind as the designations by 
Rhumbler, rg10, Zoologischer Anzeiger, pp. 453 to 471, and Ver- 
handlungen des VII Internationalen Zoologen-Kongresses, zu Graz, 
1910 (published 1912), pp. 859 to 874. 


20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


The following case is an example which illustrates Rhumbler’s 
system: 
Pachynodon reverendus Amegh. Eupachnodontos éreverendos A. m ! != 
fossiler Ungulate aus dem Ostlichen Siidamerika.—E = Saugetier; u= 
Ungulat. 


It has long been a principle in zoological nomenclature that a name 
is only a name. For instance, the Code of Nomenclature adopted 
by the American Ornithologists’ Union, 1892, pp. 21-22, contains 
the following : 


PRINCIPLE V.—A name is only a name, having no meaning until invested 
with one by being used as the handle of a fact; and the meaning of a name 
so used, in zoological nomenclature, does not depend upon its signification in 
any other connection. 

RemMARKS.—The bearing of this principle upon the much desired fixity of 
names in Zoology, and its tendency to check those confusing changes which 
are too often made upon philological grounds, or for reasons of ease, elegance, 
or what not, may be best illustrated by the following quotation: 

“Tt being admitted on all hands that words are only the conventional signs 
of ideas, it is evident that language can only attain its ends effectually by being 
permanently established and generally recognized. This consideration ought, 
it would seem, to have checked those who are continually attempting to sub- 
vert the established language of zoology by substituting terms of their own 
coinage. But, forgetting the true nature of language, they persist in confound- 
ing the name of a species or [other] group with its definition; and because the 
former often falls short of the fulness of expression found in the latter, they 
cancel it without hesitation, and introduce some new term which appears to 
them more characteristic, but which is utterly unknown to the science, and 
is therefore devoid of any authority.” If these persons were to object to such 
names of men as Long, Little, Armstrong, Golightly, etc., in cases where they 
fail to apply to the individuals who bear them, or should complain of the 
names Gough, Lawrence, or Harvey, that they were devoid of meaning, and 
should hence propose to change them for more characteristic appelations, they ~ 
would not act more unphilosophically or inconsiderately than they do in the 
case before us; for, in truth, it matters not in the least by what conventional 
sound we agree to designate an individual object, provided the sign to be 
employed be stamped with such an authority as will suffice to make it pass 
current.” 

(B. A. Code, 1842) 

These words, which in the original lead up to the consideration of the 
“law of priority,” seem equally sound and pertinent in connection with the 
above principle of wider scope. 


Regeln ftir die wissenschaftliche Benennung der Thiere zusam- 
mengestellt von der Deutschen Zoologischen Gesellschaft, 1894, p. 
5, paragraph 5c, states: 





a 5 ’ : ‘ : 
Linneus says on this subject: “Abstinendum ab hac innovatione que 
numquam cessaret, quin indies aptiora detegerentur ad infinitum.” 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 21 


c. Ein Name darf nicht verworfen oder geandert werden etwa aus dem 
Grunde, weil er “nicht bezeichnend” ist oder weil seine Bildung “unter 
Missachtung philologischer Sprachregeln ” erfolgte oder “ weil er zu lang ist, 
schlecht klingt”” und so weiter; doch sind fortan derartige fehlerhafte Wort- 
bildungen, z. B. hybride Worter, zu vermeiden. 

Es darf z.B. der Name Oriolus persicus L. nicht etwa deshalb geandert 
werden, weil es ein amerikanischer, in Persien nicht vorkommender Vogel ist, 
oder Voluta lapponica L., weil es eine indische, in Lappland nicht vorkommende 
Schnecke ist. Auch Artbezeichnungen mit gleichem Art- und Gattungsnamen 
sind daher zulissig, z.B. Buteo buteo, Arctus arctus. 


Article 32 of the International Code reads as follows: 


A generic or specific name, once published, cannot be rejected, even by its 
author, because of inappropriateness. Examples: Names like Polyodon, Apus, 
albus, etc., when once published are not to be rejected because of a claim that 
they indicate characters contradictory to those possessed by the animals in 
question. 

Rhumbler’s proposition was discussed informally by several of the 
members of the Commission at the Gratz meeting, and their inter- 
pretation was to the effect that the designations suggested by Rhum- 
bler represented formule and not names, hence that they had no 
status whatever under the Code. 

Were these to be accepted as names, they could not be changed 
in case it was discovered later that they had been given erroneous 
prefixes designating classification. Further, the prefix Ew would 
lead to confusion because of such names as Eustrongylus—a nema- 
tode, not a mammal (E) ungulate (u). 

It is obvious that the formulz in question suggested by Rhumbler 
and by Herrera would not be clear to readers unless they had con- 
stantly at hand the keys to these formule. Accordingly, in general 
usage it would be impossible for the average reader clearly to recog- 
nize which portions of the formule represented generic names and 
which portions designated classification, or whether a formula or a 
name were present (cf. Eustrongylus) and this confusion would be 
increased by changes in the classification. The result would be a 
chaotic condition in Nomenclature, in which it would be impossible 
for the average reader to orientate himself. 

If, on the other hand, the entire combination of letters and punc- 
tuation marks adopted were accepted as the technical name, the com- 
binations resulting from change of names depending upon change 
of knowledge in respect to classification and distribution would be 
such as to outweigh any possible advantage that could be gained 
by recognizing the combinations as names, since as names they would 
not be in this case subject to emendation. 


22 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Finally, the propositions made by Rhumbler and Herrera have 
never been adopted in the International Code, and the only para- 
graph in the Code which, in the most liberal interpretation, could 
be cited in favor of these designations is Article 8, Recommendation 
k, which provides that one may take as generic names: 

Words formed by an arbitrary combination of letters. Examples: Neda, 
Clanculus, Salifa, Torix. 

Recommendation k, however, was written without any considera- 
tion of cases such as are proposed by Rhumbler and Herrera, and 
the formulz in question are admittedly not arbitrary combinations 
of letters. 

In view of the foregoing premises, the Secretary recommends that 
the Commission adopt as its Opinion the following: 

Designations of animals, according to the system proposed by Her- 
rera in the case submitted for opinion, are formule, and not names. 
Accordingly they have no status in Nomenclature, and are there- 
fore not subject to consideration under the Law of Priority. No 
author is under obligation to cite these designations in any table of 
synonymy, index, or other list of names. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, 
Bather, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Handlirsch, Horvath, Hoyle, Jor- 
dan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, 4 Commissioners: Hartert, Kolbe, Roule, Simon. 

Bather: The whole matter seems to be still simpler than this 
elaborate Opinion (with which I entirely agree), viz., Herrera and 
Rhumbler were merely making proposals of a general nature; they 
were in fact proposing a new scheme of nomenclature. Their pro- 
posals were not accepted and we have nothing to do with their sug- 
gested examples. 

Jordan (D. S.): By all means discourage this sort of thing. 

Monticelli: Perfettamente d’accordo. 


NO.. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 


bo 
Kn 


OPINION 73 


FivE GENERIC NAMES IN CRINOIDEA, E1GHtTy-Stx GENERIC 
NAMES IN CRUSTACEA, AND EIGHT GENERIC NAMES IN 
ACARINA, PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL List oF GENERIC NAMES 


SUMMARY.—The following names are hereby placed in the Official List of 
Generic Names: CrINomwEA: Antedon, Bathycrinus, Holopus, Metacrinus, 
Rhizocrinus. CRUSTACEA: Acanthocyclus, Actea, Acteomorpha, Actumnus, 
Arcania, Archias, Arenzus, Atergatis, Atergatopsis, Banarecia, Bathynectes, 
Bellia, Benthochascon, Caphyra, Carpilius, Carpilodes, Carpoporus, Carupa, 
Chlorodopsis, Canophthalmus, Corystoides. Cryptocnemus,  Cvyclodius, 
Cymo, Dacryopilumnus, Daira, Deckenia, Domecia, Ebalia, Epilobocera, 
Epimelus, Erimacrus, Erimetopus, Euphylax, Favus, Gecarcinucus, Hepatella, 
Heterolithadia, Heteronucia, Heterozius, Hydrothelphusa, Ilacantha, Iphicu- 
lus, Iphis, Iva, Leucosilia, Lissocarcinus, Lithadia, Lupocyclus, Merocryptus, 
Myrodes, Nucia, Nursia, Nursilia, Onychomorpha, Oreophorus, Osachila, Para- 
cyclois, Parathelphusa, Parathranites, Parilia, Pariphiculus, Persephona, 
Phlyxia, Pirimela, Platymera, Podophthalmus, Polybius, Portumnus, Potamo- 
carcinus, Potamonautes, Pseudophilyra, Pseudothelphusa, Randallia, Scylla, 
Spelweophorus, Spherocarcinus, Telmessus, Thalamita, Thalamuitoides, Thala- 
monyx, Tlos, Trachycarcinus, Trichodactylus, Trichopeltarion, Valdivia. 
AcariIna: Amblyomma, Argas, Dermacentor, Hemaphysalis, Hyalomma, 
Ixodes, Rhipicentor, Rhipicephalus. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Crinoidea. The following five generic 
names in Crinoidea were submitted to the International Commission 
by Mr. Austin Hobart Clark, Secretary to the Advisory Committee 
on the Nomenclature of Echinoderms, with recommendation that 
they be placed in the Official List of Generic Names. Mr. Clark 
reported that all of these names are in general use, that under the 
International Rules they are nomenclatorially correct and valid, and 
that no question or objection can arise as to their status. The names 
were brought to the attention of the zoological profession in the 
Secretary’s Circular Letter no. 7, dated May, 1915. In reply to this 
[Circular Letter no. 7], no person has raised any question or objec- 
tion of any kind whatsoever to the five names here submitted for 
final vote. These same five names, with identical types, were sub- 


2 Abbreviations used in the above and following lsts: 
tod—= Type by original designation. 
tpd—= Type by present designation. 
tsd= Type by subsequent designation. 
mt—= Type by monotypy. 


24 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


mitted to the Commission independently by Apstein (1915a, 129) 

upon recommendation of Doderlein (Strassburg). 

Antedon de Fréminville, 1811, 349 (Bull. Soc. Philom., Paris, vol. 2), type, 
A. gorgonia = Asterias bifida Pennant, 1777. 

Bathycrinus Wryville-Thompson, 1872, 772 (Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb., vol. 7), 
type, B. gracilis. 

Holopus d@Orbigny, 1837, 1 (Mag. Zool., 7 ann., classe 10), type H. rangii 
d’Orbigny. 

Metacrinus (Wyville-Thomson MS. in) Carpenter, 1882, 167 (Bull. Mus. Comp. 
Zool. Camb., vol. 10 (4), tsd. (Clark r1908t, 527), M. wyvillii Carpenter, 
1884. 

ica M. Sars, 1864, 127 (Forhandl. Vidensk. Selsk.), type, R. 
lofotensis. 

Crustacea. <A list of 99 generic names in Crustacea was submitted 
to the Commission by Miss Mary J. Rathbun, Secretary to the Ad- 
visory Committee on the Nomenclature of Crustacea, who reported 
that, under the International Rules, she considered the names nomen- 
clatorially correct and valid, and she recommended that they be 
placed in the Official List of Generic Names. 

The list in question was brought to the attention of the zoological 
profession in the Secretary's Circular Letter no. 4, dated April, 1915, 
and a special effort was made to reach specialists in the group. 
Replies have been received from various zoologists including W. T. 
Calman, Stanley Kemp, J. S. Kingsley, J. G. de Man, and Thomas 
R. R. Stebbing. 

Every name has been eliminated from the original list in regard to 
which either the foregoing or any other zoologist has raised the 
slightest objection or question in their correspondence with the Secre- 
tary of the Commission, and said names have been referred again 
to Miss Rathbun for further opinion. 

The following list of eighty-six generic names (for bibliography 
see footnote*) contains no name or type designation to which the 
slightest question or objection has been raised by any person: 


? BIBLIOGRAPHY 


ApAms and Wuite, 1848, Zool. Voy. H. M. S. Samarang, Crust. 
Atcock, 1896, Jour. Asiatic Soc., Bengal, v. 65, pt. 2, No. 2. 
Atcock and ANDERSON, 1899, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (7), v. 3. 
BELL, 1855, Trans. Linn. Soc., Lond., v. 21. 

BENEDICT, 1892, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., v. 15. 

Dana, 1851, Am. Journ. Sci. (2), v. 12. 

—, 1852, Crust. U. S. Expl. Exped., v. 1. 

Eypoux and SouLryveEt, 1842, Voy. Bonite, v. 1, Crust. 

Faxon, 1893, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., v. 24. 

GuErIn, 1830, Voy. Coquille, Zool., v. 2, Crust. 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 25 


Acanthocyclus Milne Edwards and Lucas, 1844, 29, mt. A. gayi Milne Edwards 
and Lucas, 1844. 








De HAAN, 1833, Fauna Japonica. 

Hricenporr, 1869, S. B. Ges. Naturf. Freunde, Berlin, Jan. 21, 1868. 
Lamarck, I8o1a, Syst. Anim. sans Vert. 
LANCHESTER, 1900, Proc. Zool. Soc., Lond., pt. 3. 
LATREILLE, 1825, Encyc. Méth., v. Io. 

——, 1829a, Cuvier’s Régne Anim. (2), v. 4, footnote. 
Leacu, 1814, Edin. Encyc. 

——, 1815a, Trans. Linn. Soc., Lond., v. 11. 

—, 1816, Mal. Podoph. Brit., text of pl. 3. 

——, 1817a, Zool. Misc., v. 3. 

——, 1817b, Mal. Podoph. Brit., text of pl. 25. 
—, 1820, Mal. Podoph. Brit., text of pl. oB. 
LEACH in Desmarest, 1823, Dict. Sci. Nat., v. 28. 
MacLeay, 1838, Zool. S. Africa, Annulosa. 

Miers, 1877, Journ. Linn. Soc., Lond., v. 13. 
——, 1870, Proc. Zool. Soc., Lond. 

——, 1886, Chall. Rep. Zool., v. 17. 

Mitne Epwarps, 1837, Hist. Nat. Crust., v. 2. 
——, 1844, Jacquemont’s Voy. dans I’Inde, v. 4, Zool. Crust. 
——, 1848, Ann. Sci. Nat. (3), v. 9. 

——, 1853, Ann. Sci. Nat. (3), v. 20. 

——, 1865, Ann. Soc. Entom., France (4), v. 5. 
——, 1867, Ann. Soc. Entom., France (4), v. 7. 
——, 1869a, Ann. Soc. Entom., France (4), v. 9. 
—., 1869b, Nouv. Arch. Mus. Nat., Paris, v. 5. 
—, 1872, Ann. Sci. Nat. (5), v. I5. 

——, 1873a, Jour. Mus. Godeffroy, v. 4. 

——-, 1873b, Nouv. Arch. Hist. Nat., Paris, v. 9. 
——, 1878, Bull. Soc. Philom. (7), v. 2. 

——, 1870, Crust. Rég. Mex. 

——.,, 1880, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., v. 8. 

MILNE Epwarops, and Lucas, 1844, d’Orbigny’s Voy. l’Amér. Mérid., v. 6, pt. 1. 
Nosiur, 1906, Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat., Paris. 
PAULSON, 1875, Invest. Crust. Red Sea, v. I. 
RatueBun, 1894, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., v. 17. 
RUPPELL, 1830, Krabben d. rothen Meeres. 
SAUSSURE, 1857, Rev. et Mag. Zool. (2), v. 9. 
SMITH, 1870, in Verrill, Amer. Nat., v. 3. 
STIMPSON, 1857, Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., v. 6. 
—, 1858, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., v. Io. 
-——., 1860, Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist., N. Y., v. 7. 

—, 1871, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., v. 2. 

Waitt, 1846, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., v. 17. 

—, 1847, Proc. Zool. Soc., Lond., v. 15. 
Woop-Mason, 1891, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (6), v. 7. 
ZEHNTNER, 1894, Rev. Suisse Zool., v. 17. 


~ 


~ 


26 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Actsea de Haan, 1833, 4, 18, tpd. (1st sp.) A. savigniti Milne Edwards, 1834—= 
Cancer (Actxa) granulatus de Haan, 1833—=C. granulatus Audouin, 1825, 
not C. granulatus Linneus, 1758. 

Actzxomorpha Miers, 1877, 183, mt. A. erosa Miers, 1877. 

Actumnus Dana, 1851, 128, tpd. (1st sp.) A. tomentosus Dana, 1852. Species 
not named until 1852. 

Arcania Leach, 1817, 19, mt. A. erinacea= Cancer erinaceus Fabricius, 1787. 

Archias Paulson, 1875, 56, mt. A. sexdentatus Paulson, 1875. 

Arenxus Dana, 1851, 130, mt. A. cribrarius = Lupa cribraria Milne Edwards, 
1834 = Portunus cribrarius Lamarck, 1818. 

Atergatis de Haan, 1833, 4, 17, tpd. (1st sp.) Cancer (Atergatis) integerrimus 
de Haan, 1833 —=C. integerrimus Lamarck, 1818. 

Atergatopsis A. Milne Edwards, 1862, 43, Ann. Sci. Nat. (4), v. 18, mt. Carpilius 
signatus White, 1848. 

Banareia A. Milne Edwards, 18609, 168, mt. B. armata A. Milne Edwards, 1860. 

Bathynectes Stimpson, 1871, 145, tod. B. superba=Portunus superba Costa, 
1838? = B. longispina Stimpson, 1871. 

Bellia Milne Edwards, 1848, 192, mt. B. picta Milne Edwards, 1848. 

Benthochascon Alcock and Anderson, 1899, 10, mt. B. hemingi Alcock and 
Anderson, 1899. 

Caphyra Guérin, 1830, 26, mt. C. rouxit Guérin, 1830. 

Carpilius Leach in Desmarest, 1823, 228, mt. C. maculatus Fabricius = C. 
maculatus Linnzus, 1758. é 

Carpilodes Dana, 1851, 126, mt. C. tristis Dana, 1852. Species not named until 
1852. 

Carpoporus Stimpson, 1871, 138, mt. C. papulosus Stimpson, 1871. 

Carupa Dana, 1851, 120, mt. C. tenuipes Dana, 1852. Species not named until 
1852. 

Chlorodopsis A. Milne Edwards, 1873, 227, tpd. (1st sp.) C. melanochirus A. 
Milne Edwards, 1873. 

Cenophthalmus A. Milne Edwards, 1879, 236, mt. C. tridentatus A. Milne 
Edwards, 1870. 

Corystoides Milne Edwards and Lucas, 1844, 31, mt. C. chilensis Milne Edwards 
and Lucas, 1844. 

Cryptocnemus Stimpson, 1858, 161, mt. C. pentagonus Stimpson, 1858. 

Cyclodius Dana, 1851, 126, tpd. (1st sp.) C. ornatus Dana, 1852. Species not 
named until 1852. ’ 

Cymo de Haan, 1833, 5, 22, type Cancer (Cymo) andreossiji de Haan, 1833 = 
Pilumnus (?) andreossyi Audouin, 1825. Only valid species; the remain- 
ing species given by de Haan is a nomen nudum. 

Dacryopilumnus Nobili, 1906, 263, mt. D. eremita Nobili, 1906. 

Daira de Haan, 1833, 4, 18, mt. D. perlata—= Cancer (Daira) perlatus de Haan, 
1833 —C. perlatus Herbst, 1790. 

Deckenia Hilgendorf, 1860, 2, mt. D. imitatrix Hilgendorf, 1860. 

Domecia Eydoux and Souleyet, 1842, 234, mt. D. hispida Eydoux and Souleyet, 
1842. 

Ebalia Leach, 1817, tpd. (1st sp.) E. tuberosa= Cancer tuberosus Pennant, 
1777 = pennantui Leach, 1817. 

Epilobocera Stimpson, 1860, 234, mt. E. cubensis Stimpson, 1860. 

Epimelus A. Milne Edwards, 1878, 227, mt. E. cessacii A. Milne Edwards, 1878. 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 27 


Erimacrus Benedict, 1892, 220, substituted for Podacanthus, mt. Platycorystes 
(Podacanthus) isenbeckii Brandt, 1848. 

Erimetopus Rathbun, 1894, 26, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., v. 17, mt. E. spinosus 
Rathbun, 1804. 

Euphylax Stimpson, 1860, 225, mt. E. dovii Stimpson, 1860. 

Favus Lanchester, 1900, 767, mt. F. granulatus Lanchester, 1900. 

Gecarcinucus Milne Edwards, 1844, 4, mt. G. jacquemontii Milne Edwards, 1844. 

Hepatella Smith, 1870, 250, mt. H. amica Smith, 1870. 

Heterolithadia Alcock, 1896, 171, 261, mt. H. fallax = Ebalia fallax Henderson, 
1803. 

Heteronucia Alcock, 18096, 170, 177, Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, v. 65, pt. 2, No. 2, 
mt. H. vesiculosa Alcock, 18096. 

Heterozius A. Milne Edwards 1867, 275, mt. H. rotundifrons A. Milne Edwards, 
1867. 

HA ydrothelphusa A. Milne Edwards, 1872, 2, mt. H. agilis A. Milne Edwards, 
1872. 

Ilhacantha Stimpson, 1871, 155, tpd. (1st sp.) J. subglobosa Stimpson. 

Iphiculus Adams and White, 1848, 57, mt. J. spongiosus Adams and White, 
1848. 

Iphis Leach, 1817, 19, 25, mt. J. septemspinosa—= Leucosia septemspinosa 
Fabricius, 1798 = Cancer septemspinosus Fabricius, 1787. 

Ixa Leach, 1815, 310, 334, mt. J. cylindrus = Cancer cylindrus Fabricius, 1777. 

Leucosilia Bell, 1855, 205, mt. L. jurinet—Guaia (Ilia) jurineit Saussure, 
1853 = L. jurinii Bell, 1855. 

Lissocarcinus Adams and White, 1848, 45, mt. L. polybioides Adams and White, 
1848. 

Lithadia Bell, 1855, 305, mt. L. cumingii Bell, 1855. 

Lupocyclus Adams and White, 1848, 46, mt. L. rotundatus Adams and White, 
1848, ; 

Merocryptus A. Milne Edwards, 1873, 84, mt. M. lambriformis A. Milne 
Edwards, 1873. 

Myrodes Bell, 1855, 208, mt. /. eudactylus Bell, 185 

Nucia Dana, 1852, 392, 397, mt. N. speciosa Dana, 18 

Nursia Leach, 1817, 18, mt. N. hardwickti Leach, 1817. 

Nursilia Bell, 1855, 308, mt. NV. dentata Bell, 1855. 

Onychomorpha Stimpson, 1858, 162, mt. O. lamelligera Stimpson, 1858. 

Oreophorus Ruppell, 1830, 18, mt. O. horridus Ruppell, 1830. 

Osachila Stimpson, 1871, 154, mt. O. tuberosa Stimpson, 1871. 

Paracyclois Miers, 1886, 288, mt. P. milne-edwardsti Miers, 1886. 

Parathelphusa Milne Edwards, 1853, 213 (179), tsd. (Rathbun, 1905) P. triden- 
tata Milne Edwards, 1853. In the above mentioned article references are 
made to the Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, v. 7; that the former was, how- 
ever, published first is recognized in Arch. f. Naturg., Jhg. 20, v. 2, 1855, 
p. 285. 

Parathranites Miers, 1886, 185, mt. Lupocyclus (Parathramtes) orientalis 
Miers, 1886. 

Parilia Wood-Mason, 1891, 264, mt. P. alcocki Wood-Mason, 1801. 

Pariphiculus Alcock, 1896, 171, 257, tpd. (1st sp.) P. coronatus = Randallia 
coronata Alcock and Anderson, 1894. 


5. 
Be 


28 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Persephona Leach, 1817, 18, 22, tpd. (1st sp.) P. punctata—=Cancer punctatus 
Linn., 1758 (part) Cancer punctatus Linn., 1767—=P. latreillii Leach, 
1817 =P. lamarckti Leach, 1817. 

Phlyxia Bell, 1855, 303, tpd. (1st sp.) P. crassipes Bell, 1855. 

Pirimela Leach, 1816, mt. P. denticulata = Cancer denticulatus Montagu, 1808. 

Platymera Milne Edwards, 1837, 107, mt. P. gaudichaudii Milne Edwards, 1837. 

Podophthalmus Lamarck, 1801, 152, mt. P. vigil—Portunus vigil Fabricius, 
1798 = Podophthalmus spinosus Lamarck, 1801. In 1801 Lamarck wrote 
“ Podophtalmus” but later (1818) “ Podophthalmus.” 

Polybius Leach, 1820, mt. P. henslowii Leach, 1820. 

Portumnus Leach, 1814, 391, 429, mt. P. latipes— Cancer latipes Pennant, 
1777 =P. variegatus Leach, 1814. 

Potamocarcinus Milne Edwards, 1853, 208 (174), mt. P. armatus Milne Ed- 
wards, 1853. 

Potamonautes MacLeay, 1838, 64, type Thelphusa perlata Milne Edwards, 1837; 
the only species designated by name by MacLeay. 

Pseudophilyra Miers, 1879, 40, tpd. (1st sp.) P. tridentata Miers, 1870. 

Pseudothelphusa Saussure, 1857, 305, mt. P. americana Saussure, 1857. Origi- 
nally written Pseudo-Thelphusa. 

Randallia Stimpson, 1857, Feb., 85, mt. R. ornata=TIlia ornata Randall, 18309. 

Scylla de Haan, 1833, 3, 11, mt. S. serrata—=Cancer serratus Forskal, 1775 = 
Portunus (Scylla) serratus de Haan, 1833. Only two species were given 
by de Haan, and they are synonymous. 

Speleophorus A. Milne Edwards, 1865, 148, tpd. (1st. sp.) S. nodosus = Oreo- 
phorus nodosus Bell, 1855. 

Spherocarcinus Zehntner, 1894, 163, mt. S. bedoti Zehntner, 1894. 

Telmessus White, 1846, 497, mt. T. cheiragonus = T. serratus White, 1846 = 
Cancer cheiragonus Tilesius, 1815. 

Thalamita Latreille, 1829, 33, mt. Cancer admete Herbst, 1803. 

Thalamitoides A. Milne Edwards, 1869, 146, tpd. (1st sp.) IT. quadridens A. 
Milne Edwards, 1860. 

Thalamonyx A. Milne Edwards, 1873, 168, tpd. (1st sp.) Goniosoma danx 
A. Milne Edwards, 1860. 

Tlos Adams and White, 1848, 57, mt. T. muriger Adams and White, 1848. 

Trachycarcinus Faxon, 1893, 156, mt. T. corallinus Faxon, 1893. 

Trichodactylus Latreille, 1825, 705, mt. T. fuviatilis Latr. 1825. 

Trichopeltarion A. Milne Edwards, 1880, Dec. 29, 19, mt. T. nobile A. Milne 
Edwards, 1880. 

Valdivia White, 1847, 85, mt. V. serrata White, 1847. 

AcARINA. The following eight names in Acarina (Ixodoidea) 
have been made public to the zoological profession by publication 
in the following journals: Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 1915, p. 88, v. 40; 
Nature, 1911, p.) 42, v. 88; Proc. Int. Cong. Zool Monaco, 1013: 
published 1914, p. 859; Zoologischer Anzeiger, 1911, pp. 589-590, 
v. 38. 

In addition they were brought to the attention of the zoological 
profession in the Secretary’s Circular Letter no. 1, 1915. 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 29 


The same list was submitted in Circular Letter no. to, dated July, 
1915, addressed to the members of the International Commission on 
Medical Zoology (Parasitology). 

The list has also been submitted to Dr. Hassall, Secretary to the 
Advisory Committee on the Nomenclature of the Ixodoidea, and he 
reports favorably upon them. Finally the names were submitted to 
Doctor Jordan, Secretary to the International Commission on Ento- 
mological Nomenclature, and word has been received from him 
recommending that the Commission proceed to vote on the names in 
question. 

Not a single objection or question of any kind has been received 
at the Secretary’s office in regard to these names. 

All of the generic names have been verified personally by the 
Secretary to the Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and he 
considers them nomenclatorially correct and valid. 

Amblyomma Koch, 1844a, 223-231 (Arch. Naturg.), type Acarus cajennensis 
Fabricius, 1787a. 

Argas Latreille, 1796a, 178 (Précis), type Acarus reflexus Fabricius, 1794. 

Dermacentor Koch, 1844a, 235-237, type Acarus reticulatus Fabricius, 1704. 

Heemaphysalis Koch, 1844a, 237, type H’. concinna Koch, 1844. 

Hyalomma ‘Koch, 1844a, 220-223, type Acarus xgyptius Linn., 1758. 

Ixodes Latreille, 1796a, 179, type Acarus ricinus Linneus, 1758. 

Rhipicentor Nuttall and Warburton, 1908, 398 (Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc., 
vol. 14), mt. R. bicornis N. & W., 1908. 

Rhipicephalus Koch, 1844a, 238-239, type Lrodes sanguineus Latreille, 1806. 

Discussion.—In view of the foregoing premises, and on basis of 
the study given by specialists in each of the three groups in question, 
the Secretary recommends that the foregoing names be placed in the 
Official List of Generic Names. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 13 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, 
Bather, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan 
(D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, 5 Commissioners: Handlirsch, Kolbe, Roule, Simon, 
Stejneger. 

Apstein: Sollen die Off. Listen von Gattungsnamen wirklich 
durch Unmengen beliebiger Namen beschwert werden? Von den 
g2 Namen Crustaceen sind die meisten wohl iiberfliissig, da kein 
Zweifel moglich ist. Es ist eine Kleinigkeit mehrere 1,000 Namen 
zu notieren, aber was ist damit erreicht? Entweder soll man eine 
kleine Zahl wichtiger, all bekannter und streittiger Gattungen auf- 
nehmen oder alle Gattungen, dann ergiebt sich ein dicker Band. 


30 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Dautzenberg: Je ne puis approuver des listes des nomina conser- 
vanda, si les noms qu’elles enferment sont considérés comme devant 
subsister et continuer a etre employés alors meme qu’on s’apercevrait 
un jour que l’un ou l’autre est en contradiction avec la loi de priorité. 
Mais s’il est entendu que les listes dressées par des spécialistes com- 
pétents ne pourront etre modifiées que s'il est clairement démontré 
que tel ou tel nom est en contradiction évidente avec la loi de priorité, 
je suis pret a apposer ma signature au bas de ces listes. 

Jordan (D. S.): I have no objection, but I think that a study 
beginning from Linnzeus and proceeding upward will save time. 

Stiles: The problem is not a theoretical one as to what is the best 
way to establish an Official List, or what kind of a list to establish, 
but rather what is amy way to meet the divergent views of scores 
of independent workers and make progress by voluntary (namely 
unpaid) cooperation. A long list of Nomina Conservanda has been 
proposed by one Commissioner (Apstein) and this has brought to 
the Secretary a storm of protests together with urgent appeals from 
general zoologists to establish some sort of list so that nomenclature 
will be more stable. Careful studies of various groups have been 
made by various Commissioners and other zoologists, but numerous 
cases and questions have been left open and undecided. A Code 
has been adopted which covers the vast majority of cases and persons 
who understand nomenclature can apply these rules to most of the 
names with which they have to deal. Still, up to recent years the 
striking trend of nomenclature has been to emphasize differences 
rather than agreements of views as respects names. The Official 
List is an attempt to allow the troubled waters to settle awhile and 
to see in how far we all agree; thus it 1s trying out a new technique 
in the hope of obtaining results, and the more names that can be 
shown to be acceptable to all workers, despite divergent views as 
to why they are acceptable, the more settled will be the subject of 
nomenclature, even if many disputed points must be left to future 
generations. 

To insist at present upon an immediate application of the Code 
to all disputed cases or to an adoption of Nomina Conservanda to 
cover all disputed cases would inevitably result in two independent 
nomenclatures and this is not practical until we find out which are 
the disputed names, into what categories these can be classified, 
and why they are in dispute. Herein lies the value in comparing the 
Apstein (Nomina Conservanda) and the Jordan (Priority) lists. 
When certain generic names of fishes appear in both lists, and are 





NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 31 


placed in an Official List, while other names show disagreement, we 
obtain a clearer vision of our problems. 

The Official List has a chief object and a chief result in view: 
The chief object is to give to the general zoologists a list of names 
which, so far as can humanly be determined, seem to be beyond dis- 
pute; the chief result is to find out where we all can agree, thereby 
bringing us all more closely together before we reach the final differ- 
ences of opinion on cases which are in dispute. 

The outlook for settling all cases by any one method in our genera- 
tion is hopeless—unless we can change human nature. Our lives 
in general are made up of a series of compromises in policies in 
order to carry out principles; nomenclature can hardly hope to 
escape this same necessity. The great principles in nomenclature 
are (1) stability in so far as this is possible under a system of chang- 
ing conceptions as to classification, and (2) objectivity as to selec- 
tion between competitive names; the methods by which these de- 
siderata are to be reached are dependent fully as much upon policy 
as upon principle, and secondary principles can well afford to make 
way for policies which, by compromises, hold out hope for success 
of the primary principle. 


32 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


OPINION 74 
APSTEIN’S (1915) List oF NoMINA CONSERVANDA 


SUMMARY.—The Commission has no power to adopt en bloc Apstein’s list 
of proposed Nomina Conservanda, but is prepared to consider names separately 
upon presentation of reasonably complete evidence. 

PRESENTATION OF CASE.—Commissioner Apstein has submitted to 
the Commission a list of Nomina Conservanda which was printed 
in the Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde 
zu Berlin, No. 5, Mai, 1915, pages 119-202, and which he suggests 
be used as basis for studies, the results of which can be submitted to 
the next International Zoological Congress. The printed document 
is herewith accepted as Presentation of Case, and reference is made 
to the printed list for details. Copies of the list have been mailed to 
members of the Commission, and the Secretary’s Circular Letter 
no. 19, December, 1915, contains the correspondence on the subject, 
between Commissioner Apstein and the Secretary. 

Discussion.—An examination of different portions of Apstein’s 
list shows clearly that although full data are not presented in respect 
to the individual names, many of the generic 1iames quoted are valid 
under the Code, and in many cases the type species cited is correct. 
On the other hand, the list contains some names that are not valid 
under the Code, and in some cases the type species cited is not the 
correct genotype under the Code. 

The list in question corresponds, nevertheless, to the general invi- 
tation issued by the Commission in its report to the Gratz Congress, 
to send to the Secretary of the Commission zoological generic names 
to be studied in connection with the preparation of an Official List 
of Generic Names, and whatever may be the individual opinion of 
zoologists in respect to the names in question, Commissioner Apstein 
has accomplished an excellent piece of work in compiling this list and 
thus bringing to the attention of the Commission a number of names 
that are, more or less, in general use by various zoologists. 

It is equally clear, however, that the Commission has no authority 
either under the Rules, or under its Plenary Power, to act upon this 





list as a unit. 

The Secretary has submitted several groups of names to special- 
ists in the respective groups for special study, and has already placed 
some of the names before the Commission, for vote. 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 oo 


In order that definite action may be taken upon the general ques- 
tion concerning this list, the Secretary recommends that the Com- 
mission adopt as its Opinion the following : 

(1) The Commission is not authorized, either under the Rules, 
or under the Plenary Power, to adopt en bloc the list of names pre- 
sented by Commissioner Apstein. 

(2) The Secretary is authorized and instructed to submit to the 
Commission for adoption in the Official List of Generic Names, any 
of the names in Apstein’s (1915a) List for which he may be able to 
find proper authority under the Rules. 

(3) The Commission invites Commissioner Apstein to submit full 
data respecting any name in said list which he considers should be 
adopted under the Plenary Power, said data to show that “a strict 
application of the Rules will result in greater confusion than uni- 
formity.”’ 

(4) The Commission can, at least for the present, consider names 
under the Plenary Power only as individual cases, each name to be 
considered on its own merits. 

(5) The foregoing paragraph (4) is not, however, to be construed 
as preventing the Commission from considering any given publica- 
tion (article, book, or catalogue) as a whole, in which more than a 
single.name is involved, all of which come under the same general 
conditions. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 10 Commissioners: Allen, Bather, Blan- 
chard, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D.S.), Jordan (K.), Skin- 
ner, Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by 1 Commissioner: Handlirsch. 

Not voting, 7 Commissioners: Apstein, Dautzenberg, Kolbe, Monti- 
celli, Roule, Simon, Stejneger. 

Commissioner Apstein makes the following statement, which is 
concurred in by Commissioner Kolbe: 

Die Liste der Nomina Conservanda (1915) habe ich als Antrag 
an die Intern. Nomenclatur Kommission ftir den nachsten Internat. 
Zoologen Congress eingereicht. Dass sie nicht auf dem Prioritats- 
gesetz strikt basiert, geht aus dem Antrage (Zool. Anz., v. 46, 31, 
vill, 15) so wie aus der Einleitung zu der Liste hervor, liegt auch 
schon in dem Titel “ Nomina Conservanda.” 

Die Liste bildet also ein Novum uber das der nachste Internat. 
Zoolog. Congress zu beschliessen haben wird. Wenn die Nomencla- 
tur-Regeln Ausnahmen (suspensions!) nur zulassen in dem Falle 
der Verwirrung und bei Larven, so sind die Regeln eben viel zu eng 


34 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


gefasst und muss der nachste Intern. Zoologen Congress hiergegen 
Abhelfe schaffen. 

Was Punkt 3 in Circular letter 32 betrifft, das ich “ full data 
respecting any name in said list”’ vorlegen soll, so ist das 1, nicht 
moglich wegen des Umfanges der Arbeit, 2, nicht n6dtig, da es sich 
bei den Namen der Liste um ganz gebrauchliche Namen handelt die wie 
ich schon sagte, nicht auf strikter Prioritat basieren sondern von einem 
anderen Standpunkt aus beurteilt werden miissen. 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 


tr 
cn 


OPINION 75 


TWENTY-SEVEN GENERIC NAMES OF PROTOZOA, VERMES, PISCES, 
REPTILIA AND MAMMALIA INCLUDED IN THE OFFICIAL 
List oF ZOOLOGICAL NAMES 

SUMMARY.—The following twenty-seven generic names are herewith placed 
in the Official List of Zoological Names, with the type species given in the 
body of this Opinion: Protozoa: Volvox. VeERrMes: Hirudo, Lumbricus. 
Pisces: Ammodytes, Anarhichas, Atherina, Fistularia, Mugil, Myxine, Tra- 
chinus, Uranoscopus, Xiphias. Reerirta: Draco. MAm™Matia: Balena, 
Bos, Castor, Delphinus, Erinaceus, Hippopotamus, Hystrix, Monodon, Moschus, 
Ovis, Phoca, Sus, Talpa, Ursus. 

PRESENTATION OF CASE.—Circular Letter no. 26, dated April 29, 
1916, contained a list of 30 generic names proposed for inclusion in 
the Official List of Zoological Names. Said Circular Letter was 
mailed to approximately 350 zoological institutions, laboratories, and 
professional zoologists throughout the world, and 20 copies were sent 
to each Commissioner for distribution in his own country. The 
Circular Letter contained an invitation to all persons interested to 
express their approval or disapproval of these names. All of the 
names were published by Apstein in 1915. The names of fishes have 
been reported upon favorably by Commissioner Jordan, who has 
studied them for the Commission. The names of the mammals have 
been laid before the Advisory Committee on the Nomenclature of 
Mammals; the genotypes of the mammalian names agree with the 
genotypes accepted by Palmer 1904. 

It would appear, therefore, that ample notification has been given 
the zoological profession that these names would come before the 
Commission for final vote. 

Seventy-five zoologists have responded to Circular Letter no. 26; 
sixteen of these expressed approval of all of the names. Twenty- 
six additional responses raised no objection and made no comment 
on any of the names. In thirty-three instances only a portion of 
Circular Letter no. 26 was returned to the Secretary, but no adverse 
comment was made on any names in the rest of the list. 

In connection with 27 of the generic names in said Circular Letter, 
no objection, question, or adverse comment of any kind whatsoever 
has been raised. In connection with three names, namely, Doris, 
Elephas, and Equus, points have been raised which indicate the 
advisability of again referring these three names to specialists in 
the groups in question for further consideration. 


36 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


The point was also raised in regard to the general advisability of 
including in the list the original type localities of certain type species 
as published by the original authors. 

Discusston.—The Secretary feels very strongly on the point that 
at the present moment the Commission should show preference to 
cases which can be agreed upon by unanimous consent, and that 
so far as. possible, it seems wise to postpone consideration of names 
that may be questioned from any point of view whatsoever, until the 
world conditions become more settled. 

In accordance with this policy, three of the names in question, 
namely, Doris, Elephas, and Equus, have been tabled temporarily 
and without prejudice, and the original type localities have been 
omitted from the list. 

After elimination of the three names and the type localities just 
referred to, there remain 27 generic names with genotypes, in regard 
to which no objection, question, or criticism of any kind has been 
raised. 

The Secretary has verified personally all the references given 
below, and so far as evidence is available it appears that these 27 
generic names are nomenclatorially available and valid under the 
Code, and that the type designations given are in accord with the 
Rules. The only question which it seems possible to raise in respect 
to these type designations is the point whether certain of them are 
type by subsequent designation, or type by absolute tautonymy ; 
whichever method is followed the end result remains the same. 

Upon basis of the foregoing premises, the Secretary recommends 
that the following 27 generic names, as definitely fixed by the type 
species mentioned, be adopted in the Official List of Zoological Names. 


ABBREVIATIONS 
Art.= Article .... Internat’] Rules Zool. Nomenclature. 
Op.= Opinion .... issued by the Internat’! Commission. 


mt. = Monotypic. 

tod.= Type by Original Designation. 

tsd.—= Type of Subsequent Designation. 

tat. Type by Absolute Tautonymy. 
tt.= Type by tautonymy. 


PROTOZOA 
V olvox Linn., 1758a, 646, 820, tsd. V. globator Linn., 1758a, 820. 


VERMES 


Hirudo Linn., 1758a, 640, tsd. H. medicinalis Linn., 1758a, 640. 
Lumbricus Linn., 1758a, 647, tsd. L. terrestris Linn., 1758a, 647. 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 a7 


PISCES 


Ammodytes Linn., 1758a, 247, mt. A. tobianus Linn., 1758a, 247. 
Anarhichas Linn., 1758a, 247, mt. A. lupus Linn., 1758a, 247. 
Atherina Linn., 1758a, 315, mt. A. hepsetus Linn., 1758a, 315. 
Fistularia Linn., 1758a, 312, mt. I’. tabacaria Linn., 1758a, 312. 
Mugil Linn., 1758a, 316, mt. M. cephalus Linn., 1758a, 316. 
Myxine Linn., 1758a, 650, mt. M. glutinosa Linn., 1758a, 650. 
Trachinus Linn., 1758a, 250, mt. T. draco Linn., 1758a, 250. 
Uranoscopus Linn., 1758a, 250, mt. U. scaber Linn., 1758a, 250. 
Xiphias Linn., 1758a, 248, mt. X. gladius Linn., 1758a, 248. 


REPTILIA 


Draco Linn., 1758a, 199, mt. D. volans Linn., 1758a, 199. 


MAMMALS 


Balzna Linn., 1758a, 75, tsd. (or tt.) B. mysticetus Linn., 1758a, 75. 
Bos Linn., 1758a, 71, tsd. (or tt.) B. taurus Linn., 1758a, 71. 
Castor Linn., 1758a, 58, tsd. (or tt.) C. fiber Linn., 1758a, 58. 
Delphinus Linn., 1758a, 77, tsd. (or tt.) D. delphis Linn., 1758a, 77. 
Erinaceus Linn., 1758a, 52, mt. E. europeus Linn., 1758a, 52. 
Hippopotamus Linn., 1758a, 74, tsd. (or tt.) H. amphibius Linn., 1758a, 74. 
Hystrix Linn., 1758a, 56, tsd. (or tt.) H. cristata Linn., 1758a, 56. 
Monodon Linn., 1758a, 75, mt. M. monoceros Linn., 1758a, 75. 
Moschus Linn., 1758a, 66, mt. M. moschiferus Linn., 1758a, 66. 

Ovis Linn., 1758a, 70, tsd. (or tt.) O. aries Linn., 1758a, 70. 

Phoca Linn., 1758a, 37, tsd. (or tt.) P. vitulina Linn., 1758a, 38. 

Sus Linn., 1758a, 49, tsd. (or tt.) S. scrofa Linn., 1758a, 40. 

Talpa Linn., 1758a, 52, tsd. (or tt.) T. europea Linn., 1758a, 52. 
Ursus Linn., 1758a, 47, tsd. (or tt.) U. arctos Linn., 1758a, 47. 


Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 13 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, 
Bather, Blanchard, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan 
(D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner, Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, 5 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Kolbe, Roule, Simon, 
Stejneger. 


38 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


OPINION 76 


STATUS OF Pyrosoma vs. MonopHorRA; CYCLOSALPA VS. 
HoLoTHuRIA; SALPA vs. Dacysa; DoLioLum, 
APPENDICULARIA AND FRITILLARIA 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


SS LATA ay? wy otssate tae ax Ss fre tesets ieee eC te SUE OIE oe aoc ane Com eo ern 38 
Statement cof iCase? ciac%. cicte otis ere cokole rs tous esas rac cia cetera ee ee 38 
DISCUSSIOM oe renee ees ee eo EL NO OC ea TOE Ree 40 
Duty of the Commission under the Plenary Power Resolutions .... 42 
incompleteness orthe Statementsok «Gascueenmince eerie seen tere TAS 
Nomenclatorial Views of Writers on ‘Tumcata .......5...s0ccsseoe 43 
Glassesn.of Cases, sPresenite diav#, spies rosters arsvoshoeie arse eee 45 
Bibliography: . vis wstvecaesicw wakes iin spe se RIAN Gis ee Sie eR ere eee 46 
Case of Pyrosoma Péron, 1804, vs. Monophora Bory, 1804........... 47 
Case of Cyclosalpa 1827, Thalia 1701, and Holothuria 1758 ......... 49 
Caseol DaGgysa 1773 NSASGIPA A775) cece tone een Coco 57 

Case of Appendicularia 1820, Oikopleura 1831, Appendicularia 1874, 
Appendicula 1915, and Appendiculariid@ .........cc.. ce cccccces 61 

Case of Doliolum 1823, Pyrosoma 1804, Doliolum 1834, Dolioletta 1894, 
And DD OW OMDB ie ee ere etree ole. wees ERI ee Tee ee 64 

Case of Fretillaria 1842, Fritillaria 1851, Fritillaria 1872, and Fritillum 
DOTS o airece tayo tous oatepaeer sie Reet ole eu lovs stv Sse) ete a ates lato eee ae ee 66 

Motion to Table the Cases of Appendicularia, Doliolum, Fritillaria and 
SOUP GE 5 eb dea atta: eos hey Weta cetera shane ts Beacie dane enelone entero meno lee eae reer 69 


SUMMARY.—The Secretary is authorized and instructed to insist that cases 
presented for opinion shall be accompanied by reasonably complete data to 
enable fair consideration of the points at issue. Pyrosoma 1804 has priority 
over Monophora 1804. Cyclosalpa 1827 is not invalidated by Holothuria 1758 
(type physalis), which does, however, invalidate Physalia 1801. The present 
use of Holothuria (type tubulosa) in echinoderms is not in accord with the 
Rules, but authors are advised to use Physalia 1801 for the Portuguese Man of 
War, and Holothuria 1791 as genus of Sea Cucumber, pending action upon 
possible suspension of the Rules in these two cases. As presentation of the 
cases of Salpa, Appendicularia, Doliolum, and Fritillaria is incomplete and 
contains errors, these cases are laid upon the table indefinitely, but without 
prejudice; unless it can be shown that an application of the Rules in these 
cases will result in greater confusion than uniformity, the Rules should be 
enforced. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following names were submitted to the 
Commission by 12 special workers in the Tunicata, with request that 
the names be protected against change: 


Doliolum, Pyrosoma, Salpa, Cyclosalpa, Appendicularia, und Fritillaria 
sind gegen Aenderung zu sttitzen. 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 39 


Wir 12 unterzeichneten Tunicatenforscher sind tibereingekommen, die 6 
genannten Genusnamen pelagischer Tunicaten als giiltig anzunehmen. Die 
Namen dieser Tunicaten werden von jedem Zoologen als vollkommen einge- 
biurgert anerkannt werden, ihr Gebrauch hat bisher niemals zu Missverstand- 
nissen Anlass gegeben, die Genera sind Paradigmata in der zoologischen 
Systematik, sie spielen in der Entwicklungsgeschichte eine grosse Rolle und 
beanspruchen in der Tiergeographie, Planktonforschung und auch in der 
Hydrogeographie einen ganz hervorragenden Platz. Eine Aenderung der 
Namen wiirde eine schwere Schadigung bedeuten. 

(1) Doliolum Quoy und Gaimard, 1834.—Doliolum ist von Otto 1823 (N. 
Acta Ac. Leop., v. 11, p. 313) ftir eine wohl durch Phronima ausgefressene 
Pyrosoma aufgestellt worden. Dann ist Doliolum von Quoy und Gaimard, 
1834 (Voy. Astrolabe, v. 3, p. 599) gut beschrieben und jetzt in letzterem Sinne 
allgemein in Gebrauch. Den bisherigen Regeln nach wiirde Doliolum Synonym 
zu Pyrosoma werden, ftir Doliolum in heutigem Sinne wtirde ein neuer Name 
gebildet werden mtissen. Der Familienname Doliolide wtrde verschwinden. 

(2) Pyrosoma Péron, 1804.—1804 beschrieb Péron (Ann. Mus., Paris, v. 4, 
p. 440) Pyrosoma und ebenfalls 1804 Bory (Voy. Iles Afr., v. I, p. 107, nota) 
Monophora. Welcher der beiden Namen der Altere ist, lasst sich nicht fest- 
stellen, aber aus Quoy und Gaimard, 1824 (Voy. Uranie und Physicienne, p. 
495), scheint hervorzugehen dass Monophora Alter ist; sie schreiben, “ Bory— 
avait donné le nom de monophore a un mollusque, qui depuis a été appelé pyro- 
some Péron.” Es empfiehlt sich den Namen Pyrosoma fir alle Falle zu 
sichern,. 

(3, 4) Salpa Forskal, 1775, und Cyclosalpa Blainville, 1827——Diese beiden 
Genera sind durch Ihle, torr (Zool. Anz., v. 38, pp. 585-589) verteidigt und auch 
in seine Bearbeitung in “Das Tierreich” (v. 37, 1912; Siehe auch Nota p. 27, 
von F. E. Schulze) tbergegangen. Wir glauben uns mit diesem Hinweise 
begnugen zu konnen und erlauben uns noch an die gegenteiligen Aufsatze von 
Poche (Zool. Anz., v. 32, 1907, pp. 106-109; v. 39, 1912, pp. 410-413) zu erinnern. 

(5) Appendicularia Fol, 1874.—Appendicularia wurde von Chamisso und 
Eisenhardt, 1820 (N. Acta Ac. Leop., v. 10 (11), p. 362, t. 34 F. 4), ftir eine 
arctische, nicht erkennbare Art, aufgestellt. Fol hat 1874 (Arch. Zool. exper., 
v. 3, notes, p. 49) den Gattungsnamen ftir die tropische Art Appendicularia 
sicula, die von der arctischen sicher generisch verschieden ist, twhernommen 
und darauf hin hat sich der Name in letzterem Sinne allgemein eingebirgert. 
Appendicularia wiirde anderenfalls eine Species incerta enthalten und ftr 
Appendicularia mit der Species sicula wiirde ein neuer Gattungsnamen aufzu- 
stellen sein. Der Name der Ordnung Appendicularide wirde verschwinden. 

(6) Fritillaria Fol, 1874—Quoy und Gaimard, 1834 (Voy. Astrolabe, v. 4, 
p. 306), stellen den Namen Frétillaires auf [(Fritillaria Huxley 1851, Philos. 
Trans. (London), part 2, p. 595), Fritillaire C. Vogt, 1854 (Mém. Inst. 
Geneve, v. 2, no. 2, p. 74)] identificierten ihn aber sofort mit Oikopleura Mer- 
tens, 1831. Um den Namen Sritillaria zu retten, hat Fol, 1874 (Arch. exper., 
v. 3, notes, p. 49) ihn in bestimmten von frtiherem abweichendem Sinne ge- 
braucht, in welchem er sich vollstandig eingebtirgert hat. J ritillaria wiirde 
Synonym zu Oikopleura und eine Neubenennung notig. 

C. Apstein (Berlin), A. Borgert (Bonn), G. P. Farran (Dublin), G. H. 
Fowler (Apsley-Guise), R. Hartmeyer (Berlin), W. A. Herdman (Liverpool), 
J. E. 'W. Ihle (Utrecht), H. Lohmann (Hamburg), W. Michaelsen (Ham- 


AO SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


burg), G. Neumann (Dresden), C. Ph. Sluiter (Amsterdam), F. Todaro 
(Rome). 


Discuss1on.—According to the premises submitted, these cases 
call for an exercise of the Plenary Power granted to the Commission 
by the Monaco Congress to suspend the Rules of Nomenclature 
under certain conditions. As this is the first instance of this kind 
that comes to vote, attention is invited to the wording of the resolu- 
tions * upon which said power is based. 

In accordance with the provisions of §113* notice that the names 
in question had been submitted for action under the Plenary Power, 
by suspension of the Rules, was duly published? 


*See Proceedings Ninth International Congress on Zoology, Monaco (1913), 
1914, pp. 890-801 : 

(§113) Resolved, That plenary power is herewith conferred upon the Inter- 
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting for this Congress, to 
suspend the Régles as applied to any given case, where in its judgment the 
strict application of the Régles will clearly result in greater confusion than 
uniformity, provided, however, that not less than one year’s notice shall be 
given in any two or more of the following publications, namely, Bulletin de 
la Société Zoologique de France, Monitore Zoologico, Nature, Science (N. Y.), 
and Zoologischer Anzeiger, that the question of a possible suspension of the 
Régles as applied to such case is under consideration, thereby making it 
possible for zoologists, particularly for specialists in the group in question, to 
present arguments for or against the suspension under consideration; and 
provided, also, that the vote in Commission is unanimously in favor of sus- 
pension; and provided further, that if the vote in Commission is a two-thirds 
majority of the full Commission, but not a unanimous vote in favor of sus- 
pension, the Commission is hereby instructed to report the facts to the next 
succeeding International Congress; and 

(§114) Resolved, That in the event that a case reaches the Congress, as 
hereinbefore described, with two-thirds majority of the Commission in favor 
of suspension, but without unanimous report, it shall be the duty of the Presi- 
dent of the section on Nomenclature to select a special board of 3 members, 
consisting of one member of the Commission who vo‘ed on each side of the 
question and one ex-member of the Commission who has not expressed any 
public opinion on the case; and this special board shall review the evidence 
presented to it, and its report, either majority or unanimous, shall be final and 
without appeal, so far as the Congress is concerned; and 

(§115) Resolved, That the foregoing authority refers in the first instance 
and especially to cases of the names of larval stages and the transference of 
names from one-genus or species to another. 

*See Science (N. Y.), v. 39, pp. 619-620, April 24, 1914; Bulletin de la 
Société Zoologique de France, v. 39, pp. 142-144, May 12, 1914; Monitore 
Zoologico Italiano, Anno 25, pp. 74-76; Zoologischer Anzeiger, v. 44, pp. 238- 
240, May 12, Io14. 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 To 77 41 


In addition, these names were included in Circular Letter no. 2, 
Series 1915, mailed March 1915 to approximately 350 zoologists 
and zoological institutions of various kinds. 

Asa result of publication and Circular Letter no. 2, seven persons 
returned the list with no action taken, hence these persons come under 
the paragraph which reads: ‘“ In case you fail to mark any name one 
way or the other, I will interpret this as meaning that you have no 
opinion either for or against the name in question.” 

Twenty-eight persons took action on various names; some on all 
of the names, others only on names with which they were best ac- 
quainted. Twenty-seven persons raised no objection to any of the 
names and made no comment of any objective importance, except 
that, at the request of the Secretary, Commissioner Apstein, who 
originally submitted the list, added the species he considered should 
be accepted as type species for each of the six genera in question. 
One reply was received discussing the cases in detail and objecting 
to a suspension of the Rules as unnecessary. 

The data collected were summarized in Circular Letter no. 11 
and transmitted to the Commission. 


3 


>The following is a portion of Circular Letter no. I1: 

As this is the first case that comes to the Commission for action under the 
Plenary Power, it seems wise that the papers in the case be laid before the 
Commission for discussion before the Secretary prepares a formal Opinion for 
vote. : 

In accordance with this thought the Secretary has the honor to invite your 
attention to the Seventh List of Generic Names, to Circular Letter no. 2, and 
to the foregoing replies to said letter. 

If you will give me your views as to the general direction that the formal 
Opinion should take, I will collate all of the views expressed, and report to you 
upon them. This plan will naturally result in some delay, but the case is one 
of such importance, because it makes a precedent, that I cannot escape the 
feeling that the Secretary should receive from all of the Commissioners their 
preliminary views before he attempts to frame an Opinion. 

In connection with your views kindly give consideration to the following 
points: 

1. The names in question have been submitted favorably and unanimously 
by 12 specialists in the group involved; 

2. All of the provisions prescribed by the Congress in reference to the 
suspension of the Rules have been complied with; 

3. No objection to any of the said names has been raised— 

a. By any specialist in the group in question, 
b. By any specialist [except Bartsch] in any other group, 
c. By any general zoologist. 

4. Is it your “Opinion” that a suspension of the Rules in these six cases 
is based upon a question of convenience, or that the application of the Rules 
in these cases would “clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity ”? 


42 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


The various points raised in reply * to Circular Letter no. 11 have 
been held in mind by the Secretary in framing this Opinion. 

Duty of the Commission under the Plenary Power Resolutions. —It 
will be noticed that in reply to Circular Letter no. 11, the point is 
raised that the Commission should take very seriously the responsi- 
bility the International Congress has placed upon us and that the ex- 
pression “* where in its judgment the strict application of the Rules will 
clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity ” is advanced as the 
standard upon which we must base our opinion; further, also, that 
this extraordinary Plenary Power must be exercised with the utmost 
care and discretion. 

Incompleteness of the statement of case.—In respect to the State- 
ment of Case, two points of view may be considered : 

(1) It is clear that no Court at Law would consider that the evi- 
dence submitted by the Appellants is presented in a manner that 
permits a fair judicial consideration of these cases. The Commission 
is practically a Court that should decide questions on basis of the 
evidence submitted, but it has a right to insist that this evidence 
shall be reasonably complete in order to enable the Commission to 
consider the cases from every essential point of view. From this 
standpoint, the Commission would be justified in declining to con- 





5. If only a matter of convenience is involved, is this convenience of suffi- 
ciently far reaching importance to justify a suspension of the Rules? 

6. lf it is your “ Opinion” that “ greater confusion than uniformity ” would 
result, does this apply to all of the names or only to certain of them? 

7. Have the signers of the Seventh List submitted evidence that the appli- 
cation of the Rules in these cases would clearly result in greater confusion 
than uniformity, and is this evidence sufficient to justify favorable action on 
the part of the Commission? 

8. Is the Secretary correct in accepting the genotypes suggested by Com- 
missioner Apstein, or should the Secretary, as a precautional measure, request 
that these genotypes be confirmed by the other signers of the Seventh List? 

9. Would the suspension of the Rules in these six cases involve an action 
sufficiently conservative to show that the Commission is using the Plenary 
Power with caution, or would it be sufficiently radical to indicate that the 
Commission invites a general suspension of the Rules in cases where con- 
venience only is involved? 

10. Do you consider all of the six names equal in importance from the stand- 
point of the suspension of the Rules, or should a distinction be made among 
them ? 

11. Is evidence submitted that any of the names come under paragraph 3 
(115). If so, for which names? 

“The replies were copied and transmitted to the Commissioners, but it is 
not necessary to print them with the Opinion. 

° See p. 38, Statement of Case. 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 43 


sider these cases because of the incomplete preparation of the evi- 
dence. 

(2) It has, however, been the custom of the Commission to aid 
former Appellants by adding data not submitted by them, and in view 
of the fact that these names are the first to come up for consideration 
under the Plenary Power Resolutions, it would appear questionable 
whether the Commission should suddenly become more strict as to 
completeness of presentation. Accordingly, the Secretary has felt 
it better policy to add data that will enable the Commission to show 
every possible consideration to the Appellants. 

Nevertheless, in view of the great amount of work involved, the 
Secretary recommends that the Commission take this occasion to 
establish for the future the policy involved in the following reso- 
lutions : 


Resolved, That the Secretary is hereby authorized and instructed to insist 
that cases presented to the Commission for consideration shall be accompanied 
by reasonably complete data to enable a fair consideration of the nomencla- 
torial points at issue, and 

Resolved, That in order to give opportunity to submit complete evidence, the 
Secretary is hereby authorized and instructed to return to Appellants cases not 
stated with a reasonable degree of completeness. 

RESULT OF VOTE.—Resolution concurred in by 12 Commissioners : 
Allen, Bather, Blanchard, Handlirsch, Hartert, Hoyle, Jordan (D. 
S:), jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner; Stejneger, Stiles: 

Not voting, 6 Commissioners: Apstein, Dautzenberg, Horvath, 
Kolbe, Roule, Simon. 

Nomenclatorial views of writers on Tunicata.—During a study of 
the cases under consideration, the Secretary has had another oppor- 
tunity to gain an insight into some of the nomenclatorial customs 
of writers on tunicates, and thus to see the origin of at least some of 
the difficulties presented. 

The chief nomenclatorial difficulties in this group appear to be 
referable to certain fundamental factors: 

(1) In general, authors on the tunicates appear to take no ac- 
count of the principle of type species for genera. As a consequence, 
confusion results. The impression gained from the literature is that 
the authors have been working on the basis only of a morphological 
norm and without reference to a nomenclatorial type. In the judg- 
ment of the Secretary, the present nomenclatorial confusion in this 
group is likely to continue until some author gives himself the trouble 
to examine systematically the entire literature of the group and to 
determine, according to Article 30 of the Rules, the correct nomen- 


44 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLS 


clatorial type species for every generic name. Even the monographic 
works of Seeliger and Hartmeyer (Bronn’s Thierreich) and of Ihle 
(1912a) and Neumann (1913a) (in Das Tierreich) do not appear to 
have been based upon the principle of type species. If any work ex- 
ists in which genotypes have been determined for the entire tunicate 
group, the Appellants have not mentioned this in their evidence. 

(2) Certain important authors in this group do not appear to 
have based their nomenclatorial work upon a careful study of the 
Rules of Nomenclature that existed at the time they wrote. Thus, 
early authors appear to have been unfamiliar with the Linnzan Rules, 
and more recent authors (since 1842) appear to have been unfamiliar 
with, or to have misinterpreted, or to have ignored, the rules as pro- 
posed or adopted by various societies from 1842 to 1910. Under 
these circumstances it is not surprising that confusion has resulted. 

(3) A striking feature of tunicate literature is that authors con- 
sider that if the description upon which a given name is based seems 
obscure to them, they are at liberty to apply said name to any group 
they may desire, regardless of its original application,’ or to rename 
the original group." 


* For examples see the following quotations: 

Quoy and Gaimard (1834a, 590) in proposing a new genus Doliolum, say: 
“Tl ne faut pas confondre ce genre avec celui ainsi nommé par M. Otto, dans 
les Nova acta curios. natur., t. 42, fig. 7, qui n’est qu'un Biphore tronqué aux 
deux extrémités par une espece de crustacé pélagien nommé Phronyme, qui s’y 
loge et fait développer ses petits. Nous avons trouvé deux fois et rapporté ce 
singulier animal dans son logement.” 

Fol (1872a, 460) in proposing a family “ Appendiculaires ” and a new genus 
Fritillaria says: “Les descriptions que donnent Chamisso de son Appendicu- 
laire, et Quoy et Gaimard de leur Fritillaria sont si vagues, que je me crois en 
droit de faire de ces noms l’usage que je voudrai. Je conserve comme nom de 
famille, le nom donné par Chamisso, et applique le terme de Fritillaria au 
second de mes genres que ce nom désigne assez bien.” 

Under Fritillaria he gives F. furcata (Vogt), and four new species: F. 
megachile, F. aplostoma, F. formica, and F, urticans. 

Fol (1874a, xlix) in proposing a new genus Appendicularia, says: “ Les noms 
Appendicularia (Cham.) et Fritillaria (Q. & G.) se rapportent clairement a des 
animaux de la famille qui nous occupe, mais il est impossible d’appliquer les 
descriptions dont ces noms ont été accompagnés a l’une plutdt qu’a l’autre des 
formes qui la composent. Je persiste donc a me considerér comme libre de 
Jes donner au genre que bon me semble, tout en faisant suivre le nom de 
cette réserve: Diagnosis emendata. Le nom donné par Chamisso n’ayant pas 
encore trouvé son emploi, je l’appliquerai au genre actuel.” 

Of the species of Fritillaria he now cites: F. aplostoma (which he changes 
to haplostoma), F. megachile, and F. furcata. 

“Mertens (1831a, 205-206) in proposing the new genus and species Oiko- 
pleura chamissonis says: “Das in Anfrage stehende Thier ist freilich schon 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 45 


(4) At least one specialist in tunicates, who is so rigid in regard 
to priority that he rejects one name for another merely on basis of 
page precedence, does not consider it necessary to confine the geno- 
type to the original species published under a genus.’ 

In the cases that are presented by the 12 specialists in tunicates, 
the Commission is, accordingly, requested to validate certain names 
ina group which does not as yet appear to have been subjected to any 
serious or systematic nomenclatorial study on basis of the Interna- 
tional Rules. In the judgment of the Secretary, this fact alone should 
make the Commission exceedingly cautious, lest an Opinion be ren- 
dered which may possibly result in distinct and unnecessary confusion 
that might be avoided if some tunicate specialist will subject the 
group to the very necessary nomenclatorial study it deserves before 
important final steps are taken. 

Classes of cases presented—A study of the cases under considera- 
tion indicates that they naturally fall into certain categories, as 
follows: 

I. Pyrosoma 1804 vs. Monophora 1804: This case involves simply 
a determination of the facts as regards the dates. If exact dates 
cannot be determined more closely than 1804, the case is amply pro- 
vided for by Article 28.” 

II. Cyclosalpa 1827 vs. Holothuria 1758 of Lttehe, 1912: This 
case involves a determination of the genotypes according to Article 30. 


von Chamisso, vor mir, an derselben Stelle, wo ich es beobachtete, gesehen und 
bereits vor 10 Jahren in der 1. Abtheilung des to. Bandes der Verhandlungen 
der Kaiserlichen Leopolinisch-Carolinischen Akadamie der Naturforscher als 
eine neue Gattung unter dem Namen Appendicularia aufgefiithrt worden. 
Allein die Beschreibung und Darstellung ist so unvollkommen, das ich mein 
Thier fuglich als nicht bekannt annehmen kann und muss....(p. 218). Ich 
habe diese Art mit dem Namen meines....Freundes belegt....weil er der 
erste war der die Aufmerksamkeit der Naturforscher auf dieses Thier gelenkt 
hat.” 

* Thus Ihle (191ta, 588) says: “K. Heider (1895, S. 308 Anm.) hat schon 
darauf hingewiesen, dass S. mucronata in S. democratica umzuandern ist, 
denn Forskal beschreibt letzgenannte Art auf S. 113 seiner Arbeit und 
S. mucronata erst auf der folgenden Seite.... Wir kommen also zum 
Ergebnis, das....S. mucronata in S. democratica Forskal....zu andern ist.” 

* But Ihle (191ta, 585-586) also says: “Nun hat Linné [1767a] in der 12. 
Ausgabe seines Systema Nature der Gattung //olothuria [1758] noch mehrere 
Arten zugeftigt, welche teilweise echte Holothurien sind, und der Typus der 
Gattung Holothuria ist unter den in dieser Gattung verbleibenden Arten zu 
suchen.” 

“Tf the names are of the same date, that selected by the first reviser shall 
stand.” 


46 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL.A73 


III. Dagysa 1773 vs. Salpa 1775: This case involves (a) a deter- 
mination of the genotypes (Art. 30) and an application of the Law 
of Priority (Arts. 26-27). 

IV. Appendicularia, Doliolum and Fritillaria: These cases involve 
the principle (footnote 6) cited above, that an author who considers 
the original description of a genus insufficient from his point of 
view is at liberty to use the name in any way he may desire, regard- 
less of rules or consequences. 

Bibliography.—lIn discussing these cases, the Secretary refers to 
the articles mentioned in footnote.” 


™ BIBLIOGRAPHY.—lhe Secretary desires to acknowledge, with the greatest 
appreciation, the very valuable aid extended to him by Dr. Paul Bartsch, 
Curator of the Division of Marine Invertebrates, United States National 
Museum, in obtaining literature and in a study of these cases. 


AGAssiz, 1842a, Nomenclator Zool., fasc. 1, Acalaphe. 

APSTEIN, I915a, Nomina Conservanda <Sitzb. Ges. nat. Fr. Berl., No. 5, 119- 
202. 

BARTSCH, I915a, The Status of the Tunicate Genera Appendicularia and Fritil- 
laria <Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., v. 28, 145-146. Aug. 23. 

BANKs and SoLANDER, 1773, see Hawkesworth. 

BLAINVILLE, 1827, Salpa <Dict. Sci. nat., v. 47, 94-123. 

BLUMENBACH, 1791a, Handb. d. Naturg., 4 Aufl. 

1799a, Handhb. d. Naturg., 6 Aufl. 

BorGert, 1894a, Thaliacea der Plankton-Exp. <Erg. d. Plank-Exp. d. Hum- 
boldt-Stiftung, v. 2, E. a. C. 

Bory, 1804a, Voy. Iles d’Afr., v. 1. [Aug. 23, 1804.] 

BROWNE, 1756a, Hist. Jamaica. 

1789a, Hist. Jamaica. 

BRUGUIERE, 1791a, Encycl. méth., v. 7. 

1792a, Hist. nat. Vers <Encycl. méth., v. 6, 

——, Lamarck and DrsHAyeEs, 1830a, Hist. nat. Vers <Encycl. méth., v. 2. - 

, 3 , 1832a, Hist. nat. Vers <Encycl. méth., v. 3 [Deshayes]. 

BurMEIsTER, 1837a, Handb. d. Naturg. 

Catessy, 1743a, Nat. Hist. Carolina, v. 2. 

1771a, Idem. Revised by Edwards. .... “To the whole is now added 
a Linnean index of the animals and plants.” vy. 2. 

CuHAmisso and EysENHARDT, 1820a, De Animalibus [etc.] <Nova Acta Acad. 
Leop., v. 10, 343-374, pls. 24-33. 

CLAus, 1885a, Lehrb. d. Zool. 

Cuvier, 1798a, Tabl. élément. d’hist. nat. 

1830a, Le régne animal, v. 3. 

DuMERIL, 1806a, Zool. analytique. 

Encyci. METH., 1824, v. 2 [article Holothuria], pp. 457-460. 

For, 1872a, Etudes s. 1. Appendiculaires <Mém. Soc. Phy. et d’Hist. nat. 
Genéve, v. 21 (2), 445-499, pls. I-11. 

1874a, Note s. u. nouv. gen. d’Appendiculaire <Arch. Zool. expér. et 
gen., v. 3, xlix-liii, pl. 18, figs. 1-5. 

ForskAL, 1775a, Descriptiones Animalium. 





























NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 47 


CASE OF PYROSOMA® PERON, 1804, VS. MONOPHORA* 
BORY, 1804 


According to the premises presented, (1) Pyrosoma and Mono- 
phora are synonyms and (2) it cannot be determined which has 


GILL, 1907a, Holothurian Names <Science, N. Y., v. 26, 185-186. Aug. 9. 

GMELIN, 1790a, Linn. Syst. nat., ed. 13, pt. 5. 

HAWKESWORTH, 1773a, An Account of the Voyages .... in the Southern Hemi- 
sphere, v. 2. 

Home, 1814a, Lect. comp. Anat., v. I, p. 366. 

Huxtey, 1851a, Remarks on Appendicularia and Doliolum <Phil. Trans. R. 
Soc. Lond., Pt. 1, 595-605, pls. 15-10. 

IHLE, t9t1a, U. d. Nomenk. d. Salpen <Zool. Anz., v. 38 (25-26), 19 Dec., 
586-580. 

19i2za, Salpe I, Desmomyaria <Das Tierreich, 32. Lief. Mai. 

KNAuER, 1887a, Handworterbuch der Zoologie. 

LAMARCK, I8ol!a, Syst. anim. sans vert. 

181s5a, Hist. nat. anim. sans vert., v. I. 

1816a, Idem, v. 2. 

1816b, Idem, v. 3. 

Lamouroux, Bory and DresLtoncscHAmps, 1824a, Hist. nat. zooph. <Encycl. 
méth., v. 2. 

LINN#UusS, 1758a, Syst. nat., ed. 10, 1-823. 

1767a, Syst. nat., ed. 12, v. I (2), 533-1327. 

MERTENS, 183ta, Beschr. d. Oikopleura <Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersburg, 
6 sér., v. I, 205-220, pls. 1-2. 

Mopeer, 1789b, Slagtet Hafsblasa, Physsophora <K. Vet. Akad. N. Handl., 
v. 10, 277-2094. 

1790b, Slagtet Plattmask, Phyllidoce <K. Vet. Akad. N. Handl., v. 11, 
IQI-200, 

NEUMANN, I913a, Salpe I]: Cyclomyaria et Pyrosomida <Das Tierreich, 40. 
Lief., Dez. 

Otto, 1823a, Beschreibung e. n. Mol. u. Zooph. <Nova Acta Phys.—Med. Acad. 
Caes. Leop. Car. nat. cur., v. II, pp. 275-314, pls. 38-42. 

PALLAS, 1774b, Spic. zool., fasc. decimus, 1-41 [-51], pls. 1-4. 

1778b, Misc. zool., 1-224, pls. I-14. 

PARKER & HASWELL, Igtoa, Text Book of Zoology, v. 2. 

Pk&ron, 1804a, Ann. Mus. nat., v. 4. 

Pocue, 1907d, U. d. r. Gebr. d. Gattungsnamen Holothuria u. Actinia [ete.] 
<Zool. Anz., v. 32 (3-4), 20 Aug., 106-109. 

1912a, Z. Nom. d. Bohadschiidz u. d. Dagyside <Ibidem, v. 39 (11-12), 
Apr. 23, 410-413. 

Quoy & GAIMARD, 1833a, Voyage de I’Astrolabe, v. 4. 

1834a, Idem, v. 3. 

RuMPHIUvs, 1741a, D’Amboinsche Rariteitkamer. 

SCHULZE, I912a, footnote, p. 27, in Ihle, 1912a. 

ScopoLt, 1777a, Introductio ad Hist. nat. 

SHEREORN, 1902a, Index animalium. 

191ga, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 

% Pyrosoma Péron, 1804a, 437, 440, pl. 72, monotype P. atlanticum, p. 440, 
pl. 72. [Aug. 18 [or earlier], 1804.] 
*® Monophora Bory, 1804a, 107, monotype M. noctiluca, pp. 107-108, pl. 6, 
fig. 2. [Aug. 23, 1804.] 


4 
































48 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


priority in publication, but (3) Monophora appears to be the earlier. 
On basis of these premises special protection is asked for Pyrosoma 
in order that it may not be suppressed in favor of Monophora. 

The first premise is zoological in nature, and rests upon the techni- 
cal judgment of the petitioning specialists. For the purpose of this 
Opinion it is fundamental, and is accepted as established. 

The second and third premises involve questions of fact which can 
be studied without reference to technical interpretation in taxonymy. 

According to the evidence before the Secretary (personal ex- 
amination of the necessary literature) the two publications in ques- 
tion (Péron and Bory) are of the same year (1804), but that of Peron 
for Pyrosoma also bears the date of An XII of the French Republic, 
and that of Bory for Monophora also bears the date of An XIII of 
the French Republic. . 

An XII ended September 22, 1804, and An XIII began September 
23, 1804. As it is a general principle that the date borne by a publi- 
cation is to be assumed to be correct unless proved to be incorrect, 
the evidence of An XII and An XIII would at first appear to settle 
the question at issue. The work by Bory bears, however, the printed 
statement on its flyleaf that in accordance with law, two copies of the 
book were deposited in the Bibliotheque nationale, Paris, “ce 5 
Fructidor An XII de la Républic Francais” (namely, August 23, 
1804). Furthermore, according to Sherborn (1914a, p. 366) volume 
4 of the Ann. Mus. nat. (containing Pyrosoma) was published in 
August, 1804. Furthermore, also, Commissioner Blanchard in reply 
to a request of the Secretary to establish in Paris the exact date of 
issue of Péron’s publication, has, under date of March 28, 1916, 
replied as follows: 

Le fascicule 24 des Annales du Museum d’histoire naturelle, qui contient le 
mémoire de Péron, se trouve annoncé et analysé dans le Journal général de la 
librairie [not accessible to the Secretary] de thermidor an XII. Thermidor an 
XII finissant le 18 aout 1804, il est donc hors de doute que le mémoire de Péron 
est paru quelque temps, peut-etre meme plusieurs semaines avant cette date. 

Accordingly the actual date of publication for Monophora is 
August 23, 1804, and for Pyrosoma it is earlier than August 18, 1804. 

An examination of the facts of the case in question shows, there- 
fore, that the 2nd and 3rd premises, upon which the Appellants ask 
special protection for Pyrosoma are erroneous, and that if the In- 
ternational Rules are rigidly applied, Pyrosoma is amply protected 
from danger of being suppressed in favor of Monophora. 

In view of the foregoing data, the Secretary recommends that the 
Commission adopt as its Opinion the following: 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 49 


The data presented by the Appellants do not show that an appli- 
cation of the Rules in this case will produce greater confusion than 
uniformity, hence Pyrosoma vs. Monophora is not a case in which 
the Commission would be justified in suspending the Rules. 

Opinion written by Stiles. . 

Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, 
Bather, Blanchard, Handlirsch, Hartert, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), 
Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. 

Not voting, 4 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Horvath, Roule, 
Simon. 


CASE” OF CYCLOSALPA 1827, THALIA 1791, AND 
HOLOTHURIA 1758 


Systematic Conceptions of Holothuria—The generic name Holo- 
thuria, as used by various authors from 1758 to 1916, has included 
species of four different subkingdoms, namely, Group A, Coelen- 


** Names dating prior to 1758, hence not validated in original publication: 


Holothuria Rumphius, 1741a, 49-50, monotype [H. physalis 1758]. 

Physalis Osb. .[Not accessible to Secretary. ] 

Thalia Browne, 1756a, 386, contains 3 species [1 = Hol. thalia, 2—=H. caudata, 
3—H. denudata] ; 1789a, 384, 386 [reprint, not validated here]. 

’ Names dating 1758 or later: 

Holothuria Linn., 1758a, 657, contains physalis, thalia, caudata, denudata. 

Type physalis, designated by Gill, 1907a, 185-186, and Schulze, 1912a, 27. 
[See also Blumenbach, 1791a, 428 and 17909a, 421.| 

Type thalia, designated by Poche, 1912a, 410-411. 

Type tubulosa, designated by Apstein, T915a, 132. 

Holothurium Pallas, 1774b, 26 (for Holothuria) describes zonarium. 

Phyllidoce Modeer, 1790b, 191-207, contains velella 1758 (syn. Phyllidoce labris 
caeruleis Browne, 1789a, 387 [not validated by Edwards in Browne, 1789a, 
387 or on pl. 48, fig. 1]), denudata 1758, and porpita 1758. 

Physsophora Forskal, 1775a, 112, 119, contains hydrostatica, rosacea, and 
fliformis.—Apstein, I915a, 128 cites hydrostatica as type. 

Aretusa Edwards in Browne, ¥789a, 386 for Arethusa Browne, 1756a. [Not 
validated here]. 

Thalia Bruguiére, 1791a, pls. 88-89, contains 1. Hol. thalia [type by absolute 
tautonymy],'2. H. caudata, 3..... ?,... [could not be traced by Secre- 
tary], and 4. H. physalis. 

Thalis Cuvier, 1798a, 398, for Thalia 1791, hence type H. thalia. 

Cyclosalpa Blainville, 1827, 108-109, contains Salpa pinnata Gmel., S. affinis, 
and [as sp. incert.] “les espéces de thalides de Browne.”—Apstein, 1915a, 
186, cites pinnata as type. 

Physalia Lamarck, 1801a, 355-356, mt. P. pelagica (=H. physalis 1758) .— 
Apstein, 1915a, 128, cites arethusa Browne, 1756, as type. 

Physalis Lamarck, 1816a, v. 2, 478-481 (uses both Physalia and Physalis). 


50 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


terata, Group B, Tunicata, Group C, Echinodermata, and Group D, 
Vermes, as follows: 

Linneus (1758a, 657) validated Holothuria nomenclatorially as 
generic name under which he united two earlier genera to which he 
did not grant the rank of subdivisions, namely : 

Group A, The Portuguese Man of War [Holothuria® 1741; Arethusa™ 1756; 
and Physalis “]. 
1. H. physalis, for which he cited the earlier names: Holothuria® 
Rumphius; Arethusa™ Browne; and Physalis pelagica™. 
Group B, Three Jamaican salps [genus Thalia Browne, 1756]. 
2. H. thalia, based on Thalia 1. of Browne, 1756a, p. 384, pl. 43, fig. 3. 
3. H'. caudata, based on Thalia 2, of Browne, 1756a, p. 384, pl. 43, 
fig. 4. 
4. H. denudata, based on Thalia 3, Browne, 1756a, p. 384. 

Essentially, therefore, Holothuria 1758 equals Holothuria 1741 
(syns. drethusa 1756 and Physalis) + Thalia 1756. 

That the first species (H. physalis) should have been taken as 
genotype by later authors is clear from the following facts: 

(1) Holothuria 1758 is based directly upon Holothuria 1741; 

(2) Linneus’ rule, in case of a division of a genus, reads: 

Si genus receptum, secundum jus nature et artis, in plura dirimi debet, tum 
nomen ante commune manebit vulgatissime et officinali plante. 

(3) As the Portuguese Man of War was observed, named, and 
reported by various authors, it was clearly, from Linnzus’ viewpoint, 
more common than any one of the three species of the Thalia group, 
which were based upon the publication by only one author. 





- *Rumphius (1741a, 49-50) described and named Holothuria, without bi- 
nomial, stating that it belonged to the so-called Urticaria marina. Rumphius’ 
animal is apparently Physalia of modern authors. 

* Browne (1756a, 386) is not accessible to the Secretary; in a later edition, 
Browne (1789a, 386) uses Aretusa for “ The Portuguese Man of War” (Phy- 
salia of modern authors) and (1789a, 384) he uses Thalia as follows: 


Thalia 1. Oblonga, crista, perpendiculari compressa quadrata, lineis later- 
alibus integris. Tab. 43 f. 3. 

Thalia 2. Oblonga caudata, crista depressa rotundata, lineis lateralibus 
interruptis. Tab. 43. f. 4. 

Thalia 3. Oblonga, lineis interruptis, cauda et crista destituta. 


As he uses the names “3, Holothuria thalia. 4, Holothuria caudata” in 
the explanation on plate 43, it seems clear that Thalia 1756 is not validated 
in 1789. 

From descriptions and figures, all three of Browne’s species appear to be 
salps in the modern sense, but without re-examining the Jamaican salps it 
would be difficult or impossible to determine what particular genera and 
species are referred to. 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 51 


Under ordinary circumstances the nomenclatorial decision might 
well be based upon this original publication alone, without addi- 
tional historical review, but on account of the complications that 
have arisen, it seems wise to follow the literature further. 

Linneus (1767a, 1089-1091) included in Holothuria the four 
(1758a) species of the two original groups (A, Holothuria 1741, and 
B, Thalia 1756) and added five other species that are recognized 
by authors as belonging to two other categories, namely, 

Group C, Sea Cucumbers [cf. Fistularia Forskal, 1775, preoccupied by Fis- 
tularia 1758a, a fish] [cf. also Bohadschia Jeger, 1833]. 
1. H, frondosa Gunnerus, 1767, 115, [cf. Cucumaria; | 
2. H. phantapus Linn., 1767a, 1080, [cf. Psolus;] 
3. H. tremula Gunnerus, 1767, 110, [cf. Holothuria authors ;] 
8. H. pentactes Linn., 1767a, 1091, [cf. Cucumaria.] 
Group D, Vermes, Gephyrea. [Cf. Priapulus Lamarck, 1816b, 76-77, mt. 
caudatus = priapus 1767 renamed. | 
9. H. priapus Linn., 1767a, IogI. 


Here is found the origin of the present day confusion. Many 
authors have taken the 12th edition of Linnzeus (1767a) as the start- 
ing point of their nomenclature, and, in fact, the British Association 
(1846) Code of Nomenclature adopts this date as basic. Other 
authors have taken the 1oth edition of Linnzeus (1758a) as starting 
point, as provided for in the A. A. A. S., the A. O. U., the French, 
the German, and the International Rules. Accordingly, there was a 
period during which different authors might follow rules in good 
faith and still arrive at different nomenclatorial results. Hence, to 
understand the case, we must follow three (A-C) of the groups, 
A-D, still further. 

This case may, in fact, be taken as a typical example of a number 
of complicated nomenclatorial problems that confront us, and it 
would be well to hold the cause in mind in reaching a conclusion. 


Group A, THE PorrucuESE Man or War. HoLotHurIA 1741 = ARETHUSA 
1756 = PHYSALIS = ARETUSA 1789= PuHysAaLi 1801. 


Holothuria physalis has been taken as basis of Holothuria by the 
following authors : 

Blumenbach (1791a, 428 and 1799a, 421) adopts Holothuria in 
its original (1741) sense, mentioning only one species, H. physalis. 
For his use of Thalia see below, p. 52. 

Gill (1907a, Aug. 9, 185-186) definitely designates H. physalis as 
genotype of Holothuria 1758, as shown by the Commission (1910, 
p- 34) in Opinion No. 16. 


52 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Schulze (1912a, p. 27) considers that Holothuria should be re- 
tained for H. physalis; for his disposition of Thalia, see below. 

Modeer (1789b, 285) had transferred H. physalis to Physsophora 
Forskal, 1775. This genus originally contained only P. hydrostatica, 
rosacea, and filiformis. 

Lamarck (1801a, 355-350) adopted Physalia as a new genus, with 
pelagica as monotype. He gives as synonym of pelagica, Holothuria 
physalis Linn., Thalia 1791, and Arethusa Browne, p. 386. 

Burmeister (1837a, 460) adopts Physalia, mentioning Ph. cara- 
vella (with syns. Ph. arethusa Eisenh., Ph. pelagica Lam., Cystisoma 
atlantica Lesson). 

Apstein (1915a, 128) (quoting WVanhoffen, 1903) reduces 
Browne’s (1756) generic name (Arethusa) to specific rank, and 
cites it as type species (of Physalia) with the date 1756. 

Physalia has been changed to Physalis by some authors. Either 
Physalia or Physalis has been used by nearly all authors since 1801 
as generic name for the Portuguese Man of War, and it may be said 
to be at present practically in universal use, except for Gill (1907a) 
and Schulze (19124). 


Group B. THALIA BROWNE, I756A, THE JAMAICAN SALPS 

So far as the Secretary has found, the first authors to make 
Thalia available under the Rules, were Blumenbach (1791a) and 
Bruguiéere (1791a), but he is unable to state which publication has 
priority. 

Pallas (1774b, 26) changed Holothuria to Holothurium, mention- 
ing H. gonaria. IThle (1g12a, 27) gives Holothurium 1774 as syno- 
nym of Salpa. 

Modeer (1790b, 201) had already transferred Hol. denudata (= 
Thalia 3 of Browne, 1756) to Phyllidoce. This genus of Modeer 
(1790b, 191-207) was based upon velella, [Hol.| denudata 1758, 
and porpita. It was clearly based primarily upon Phyllidoce labris 
cacruleis of Browne, 1789a, 387 (the only species of Phyllidoce 1789) 
which Modeer gives as synonym of velella. 

Bruguiére (1791a) uses Thalia on pls. 88-89, without specific 
names, for the following: 

pl. 88 fig. 1 Browne’s pl. 43 fig. 3 (reversed) = Hol. thalia 1758; 

pl. 88 fig. 2—Browne’s pl. 43 fig. 4 (reversed) — Hol. caudata 1758; 


pl. 88 fig. 3— [not traced by Secretary] ; 
pl. 89 fig. 1== The Portuguese Man of War = Physalia. 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77, 53 


From the foregoing it appears that taxonomically Thalia 1791 is 
practically coextensive with Holothuria 1758, but nomenclatorially 
Hol. thalia becomes the genotype of Thalia by absolute tautonymy.” 

Cuvier (1798a, 389) emended Thalia to Thalis as follows: 


VII. Les Tuauives. (Thalis) (Thalia Brug.) (Holothuria Lin.) [generic 
diagnosis] “Une espece (thalis physalus) (holothuria physalus Lin.) a de 
longs et nombreux tentacules; les autres (holothuria thalia, etc. Lin.) en 
sont dépourvues. 


Thalis takes Hol. thalia as type, since Thalis is only an emendation 
of Thalia. 

Blumenbach (1799a, 472) mentions Thalia, quoting only one spe- 
cies, lingulata (Atlantic Ocean) and citing Forster. 

Lamarck (1801a, 356) accepts Thalis, mentioning only one spe- 
cies, trilineata (with references to Hol. thalia 1758 and Thalia 
Browne, 1756a, plate 43, figure 3, and referring to Bruguiére, 17914, 
plate 88, figure 1). 

Blainville (1827, 108-109) separated from Salpa the group Cyclo- 
salpa, with diagnosis; he cites S. pinnata Linn. Gmel., S. affinis 
Chamisso, and adds: 


Il faut, sans doute, rapporter a cette section les espéces de thalides de 
Browne, puisqu’elles se réunissent aussi en cercle; peut-étre méme ne sont-ce 
que des biphores pinnés, comme le pense M. de Chamisso; mais ce qu'il 
est impossible d’assurer, tant les descriptions et les figures sont incompletes. 


According to the Code, the type of Cyclosalpa must be either 
pinnata or aflinis. Browne’s species are excluded (Art. 30e8) since 
Blainville considered them as species inquirendae. Apstein (1915a, 
186) has designated C. pinnata as type species. 


“Two possible interpretations come into consideration in connection with 
Thalia 1791 as follows: 

First: Some authors might be inclined to consider Thalia a new name 
for Holothuria 1758. In this event the question would arise as to whether 
Thalia should take Hol. physalis 1758 as genotype, because of the citation by 
Linnzeus; or whether H. thalia became the type of Thalia by absolute tau- 
tonymy, and thus by the principle of renaming became also type designation 
for Holothuria 1758. 

Second: Some authors might maintain that Bruguiére in 1791 divided the 
genus Holothuria as it existed at the date of his writing, retaining Holothuria 
for the Sea Cucumbers, and separating from Holothuria the genus Thalia. 
In this latter alternative H. thalia undoubtedly becomes type of Thalia by 
absolute tautonymy. 

The Secretary accepts the second interpretation on the ground that it seems 
to him to correspond more clearly with the facts, and it also seems to simplify 
the complications. 


54 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL.073 


Poche (1907a, Aug. 20, 106) in discussing Holothuria 1758, and . 


applying the principle of elimination, cites the transfer of physalis 
to Physsophora in 1789, and of denudata to Salpa by Modeer “ 1790, 
201 or 202, but does not mention Thalia 1791 and Thalis 1798 and 
1801, and he states that either thalia or caudata should be taken as 
the type of Holothuria 1758. 

Thle (191ta, 585-586), in a discussion of the nomenclature of 
Holothuria, states that Traustedt (1885, 353) and Seeliger (1893, 
23) consider 7. thalia [type of Thalia 1791] and H. caudata as syno- 
nyms of Cyclosalpa pinnata, but that he (Ihle) considers that the 
identification of H. thalia with C. pinnata is only a conjecture (“ ein 
Vermuten ’’), and that it is clear that Browne had observed “ Salpen ” 
although that the descriptions and figures of Browne are too meagre 
(durftig) to permit of an identification of the two species. Ihle 
claims that even if the identity of C. pinnata with H. thalia be ad- 
mitted, Holothuria cannot replace Cyclosalpa, since Linnzus (1767a) 
had added further species to Holothuria and the type of Holothuria 
should be sought among those still remaining in the genus. 

Poche (1g12a, Apr. 23, 410-411) in replying to Thle (1g11a, 585- 
586) points out the latter’s error [under the Rules] in connection 
with Linnzus, 1767a, and designates H. thalia as type of Holothuria, 
1758. This designation is, however, antedated by Gill’s (1907) 
designation of physalis. 

Schulze (1912a, 27) advises the use of Salpa 1775 for the species 
of Thalia 1756. 

Ihle (1912a, May, p. 15) gives Thalia Browne, 1756 (see also 
1789), and Holothuria Linn., 1758 (part), as doubtful synonyms of 
Cyclosalpa, and (p. 17) he cites H. thalia+H. caudata+H. denudata 
Linn., 1758, as doubtful synonyms of Cyclosalpa pinnata (1775). 


Group C. Sea CucumsBers. HoLtotHuriA AuTHorS [Not LINN., 1758] 


It was seen above that Linnzus (1767a) added four species of 
Sea Cucumbers to Holothuria; namely, frondosa, phantapus, tremula, 
and pentactes. 

Authors who took the 12th edition of Linnzeus (1767a) as start- 
ing point for their nomenclature should have confined the genotype to 
one of these species in case they desired to restrict Holothuria to the 
Sea Cucumbers. : 


*8 Modeer, 1790b, 201, placed denudata in Phyllidoce—CWS. Compare, also, 
Sherborn, 1902a, 294 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 55 


Gmelin (1790a, 3138-3143) added 16 species” to Holothuria, 
changing tremula to tubulosa and pentactes to pentacta. 

Bruguiere (1791a, pls. 85-87) after eliminating the original species 
(1758) of Holothuria to Thalia, restricts Holothuria to the Sea Cu- 
cumbers.” 

Cuvier (1798a, 644-645) mentions only tubulosa Linn., [Gmel., 
1790a, see tremula Linn.| and pentacta [see pentactes| under Holo- 
thuria. 

Lamarck (1801a, 351) mentions only “HAH. tubulosa Linn.,”’ and, 
since 1801, Holothuria has been almost universally confined to the 
Sea Cucumbers of this group.” 

Apstein (1915a, 132) cites tubulosa Gmel. [cf. tremula] as type, 
and it will be noticed that of the authors quoted in footnote 21 tremula 
Linn., 1767a [cf. tubulosa Gmel. 1790a| is mentioned as a Holo- 
thuria auct. [not 1758] by: Linnzus (1767a), Cuvier (1830), and 
Gill (1907a), while tubulosa Gmelin, 1790a [cf. tremula Linn., 
1767a| is mentioned as a Holothuria by Gmelin (1791a), Cuvier 
(1798a), Lamarck (1801a), Burmeister (1837a), Claus (1885a), 
Leunis (1886a) and Apstein (1915a). 

This list might be extended much further, but it is sufficiently 
long to show that one of the Linnzeus’ (17607a) holothurian species, 
namely, tremula, which was renamed tubulosa by Gmelin (1790a), 

” The additional species are: 10. elegans, I1. squamata, 12. penicillus, 13. 
fusus, 14. inherens, 15. levis, 16. minuta, 17. forcipata, 18. sonaria, 10. vittata, 
20. maxima, 21. impatiens, 22. nuda, 23. spirans, 24. papillosa, 25. spallanzani. 

” The text to these plates has not been found by the Secretary, but a later 
edition (1824, v. 2) of the Encyl. méth., refers to plates 85-87 and uses for 
the figures the following names: frondosa, phantapus, pentacta, doliolum, 
fusus, inherens, glutinosa, vittata, squamata, and penicillus. 

*Duméril (1806a, 304-305) continues Holothuria as an echinoderm, but 
gives no species. 

Lamarck (1816b, 71-74) quotes under Holothuria: frondosa phantapus, 


pentacta, doliolum, fusus, inhewrens, glutinosa, vittata, squamata and peni- 
cillus. 

Cuvier (1830a, 238-240) quotes: phantapus L., squamata Mueller, regalis 
Fab., tremula [cf. tubulosa], frondosa, and in footnote, elegans, ete. 

Burmeister (1837a, 471) quotes tubulosa [cf. tremula], elegans, impatiens, 
ananas, monacaria, u. a., but recognizes Bohadschia, Miilleria, and Trepang 
as distinct genera. 

Claus (1885a, 249) quotes tubulosa [cf. tremula], and edulis. 

Leunis (1886a, 888-889) quotes monacaria, marmorata, scabra, vagabunda, 
impatiens, atra, edulis, tubulosa [cf. tremula], and polit. 

Gill (1907a, 185) quotes frondosa and pentactes as Cucumaria, phantapus 
as Psolus, and tremula [cf. tubulosa] as Holothuria of modern authors. 


56 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


has continued in Holothuria even after this name was definitely 
transferred to the Echinoderms. 

From the standpoint of the British Association Code of 1846, 
which took Linnzeus (1767a) 12th edition as starting point of nomen- 
clature, the present general use of Holothuria for the Sea Cucumbers, 
instead of for the Portuguese Man of War, is therefore justified, 
although, as shown above, the name Holothuria should, on basis 
of the American, French, German, and International Rules, which 
take the 1oth (1758a) instead of the 12th (1767a) edition of Lin- 
neus as starting point, be used for the Portuguese Man of War. 

Doubtless the papers by Gill (1907a) and Poche (1907a and 1912a) 
in discussing this case have caused more dissatisfaction with the 
Law of Priority than has any other single case of nomenclature that 
has ever arisen. And this case of Holothuria was one of those 
which the Commission had particularly in mind when we worded, 
in the way we did, the Resolutions presented to the International 
Congress and adopted by the Congress, conferring upon the Com- 
mission Plenary Power [$113] “to suspend the.Rules as applied to 
any given case, where in its judgment the strict application of the 
Rules will result in greater confusion than uniformity ” and [§115] 
“the foregoing authority refers in the first instance and especially 
to... . the transference of names from one genus to another.” 

Holothuria is, in fact, the best example known to the Secretary in 
the entire field of nomenclature that comes into consideration in 
connection with the Plenary Power cited. If suspension of the 
Rules is not justified in this case, it is doubtful whether it is justified 
in any case. The name presents, therefore, a test case of the Plenary 
Power. 

Unfortunately, the petitioners have presented their case of Cyclo- 
salpa in such a way that the Commission can not act upon the case of 
Holothuria 1758 vs. Physalia 1801 and Holothuria of authors vs. 
Bohadschia 1833, at the present time, and it becomes necessary to 
notify the zoological profession that these two cases will come up 
for consideration under the Plenary Power authority. The Secre- 
tary has taken action in this direction. He was scarcely in a position 
to take this action earlier, on account of the fact that the petitioners’ 
case of Cyclosalpa 1827 vs. Holothuria of Poche 1912 had not 
reached a stage in its procedure that justified further public notice. 

On basis of the premises presented by the petitioners, and the 
supplementary data submitted in the foregoing discussion, the Secre- 
tary recommends that the Commission adopt as its Opinion the 
following: 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 57 


(1) Cyclosalpa 1827 is not invalidated by Holothuria 1758. 

(2) The data submitted by the petitioners are not clear as to 
the point whether Cyclosalpa 1827 is invalidated by Thalia 1791. 

(3) If Thalia 1791 is, as intimated by Schulze (1912), synony- 
mous with Salpa 1775, Cyclosalpa 1827 is in no danger of being sup- 
pressed in favor of Thalia 1701. 

(4) If Thalia 1791 is only a doubtful synonym of Cyclosalpa 
1827, it is neither necessary nor wise to suppress Cyclosalpa 1827 
in favor of Thalia 1791. 

(5) If, on the other hand, Holothuria thalia, the type of Thalia 
1791, is definitely recognized by systematists as congeneric with the 
type of Cyclosalpa 1827, a very simple case is presented in which 
the Law of Priority should be applied, unless it can be shown that 
a strict application of the Rules will result in greater confusion than 
uniformity. 

(6) Holothuria 1758 (type physalis) undoubtedly has priority 
over Physalia 1801. 

(7) Holothuria of authors, as an echinoderm genus, type tubulosa 
(teste Apstein) is undoubtedly an illegal use of the name Holothuria 
and should (teste Gill, 1907; and Poche, 1907, and 1912) be super- 
seded by Bohadschia. 

(8) Notwithstanding the foregoing conclusions, the Commission 
advises zoologists to use Physalia 1801 for the Portuguese Man of 
War and Holothuria in its present general use in the echinoderms 
(namely, as a genus of Sea Cucumber) pending final action by the 
Commission on these two cases. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Allen, Bather, Blan- 
chard, Hartert, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, 
Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by 3 Commissioners, who vote to preserve 
Cyclosalpa under Suspension of Rules: Apstein, Handlirsch, Kolbe. 

Not voting, 4 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Horvath, Roule, 
Simon. 


GASE OF DAGYSA 1773 VS-SALPA 1/75 


Hawkesworth (1773a, 2-3), quoting from notes by Banks and 
Solander, gave a brief description of certain animals, and adds: 


These animals are of a new genus, to which Mr. Banks and Dr. Solander 
gave the name of Dagysa from the likeness of one species of them to a gem. 





2 Salpa Catesby 1743a, 17, mt. purpurasens variegatus, a fish—Edwards 
in Catesby, 1771a, 17—Sherborn 1902a, 865. 


58 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


No specific name is used, but the locality is given as between 
Plymouth and Madeira, off the coast of Spain, where, it is stated, 
“the sea abounds with them.” 

Gmelin (1790a, 3131) accepts Dagysa, with the single species 
notata (based upon Banks and Solander, 1773, 2) which becomes the 
type species of the genus. 

Ihle (1912a, 47) quotes “ Dagysa notata (part) ” as synonym 
of Salpa vagina Tiles, 1791. 

Forskal (1775a, 112) proposed the genus Salpa, with generic 
diagnosis, to contain maxima, and Io other species.” 

Catesby (1743a, 17) had already described a fish under the name 
Salpa purpurasens variegata, “The Lane-Snapper.” As this ante- 
dates 1758, the name does not come into consideration in nomencla- 
ture. Sherborn (1902a, 856) quotes this as “ Salpa G. Edwards in 
M. Catesby, Carol. II, 1771, 17——P.” This latter reference has been 
examined by the Secretary, and the list of Linnzean names has been 
examined by Commissioner Skinner; a transcript of the list for 
the name in question makes it clear to the Secretary that Salpa 
Catesby 1771 is not validated, hence it does not compete with Salpa 
1775: 

Poche (1907a, 109) rehabilitates Dagysa 1773 in place of Salpa 
1775, changing the family name Salpide to Dagyside. 

Thle (1911a, 586) states that on basis of the description in Hawkes- 
worth the identity of Dagysa and Salpa is only a conjecture, but that 
Home (1814) published a drawing of Dagysa which was made 
during Banks’ trip, and that this (Dagyza strumosa) is identical 
with Salpa tilesii Sol. Ihle rejects Dagysa 1775 on the ground that 
he considers it was not published in accordance with the Rules, and 
in support of this view he quotes Hawkesworth’s reference to “ an- 
other animal of a new genus they also discovered .... the genus 
was called Carcinium opalinum.”’ Thle does not, however, call attention 
to the fact that Hawkesworth quotes many Linnzan names consis- 
tently, and that the term “ genus ”’ in this case might easily be a lapsus, 





Dagysa Banks & Solander, 1773, 2-3, in Hawkesworth 1773a, mt., species 
not named here.—Gmelin, 1790a, 3131, mt. notata. 

Salpa Forskal, 1775a, 112, 117, includes maxima, pinnata, democratica, 
mucronata, punctata, confederata, fasciata, sipho, africana, solitaria, poly- 
cratica—Apstein, I915a, 186, cites maxima as type. 

Biphora Bruguiére, 1792a [1780, teste Sherborn, 1902a, 128], x, 178-183, 
includes 9 original species (1775) of Salpa (maxima, pinnata, democratica, 
mucronata, punctata, confaederata, fasciata, africana, polycratica). 

Dagyza Home, 1814, 360. 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 59 


especially in view of the numerous instances in which the nomencla- 
ture of the author is consistent. 

Poche (1912a, 411-412) replying to Ihle (1911a) points out that 
Hawkesworth uses many Linnean names consistently, and Poche 
insists upon the validity of Dagysa 1773. 

Ihle (1912a, 27) accepts Salpa, without mentioning type species, 
and adopting as earlier generic synonyms: Dagysa 1773 (which he 
marks as “non. bin.’’), and Holothurium 1774, and he gives D. 
notata (part) as synonym of S. vagina. Schulze (1912a, 27) adds 
in a footnote: 

Linné hatte in der 10. Auflage seiner Systema nature im Jahre 1758 in 
seiner Gattung 4 Arten aufgefuhrt. Die erste Art, H. physalis, die jetzt unter 
dem Namen P/iysalia bekannt ist, muss als erste angefuhrte Species den Gatt- 
ungsnamen Holothuria behalten, der vor Physalis die Prioritat hat. Fur die 
ubrigen 3 Arten [Thalia 1756] des Linneschen Genus, unter denen sich sicher 
als Salpen erkennbare Tiere befinden muss ein neuer Gattungsname gewahlt 
werden und da bietet sich als Name des nachsten in Betracht kommenden 
Beschreibers Forskal der Name Salpa—Der Herausgeber [Schulze] im Ein- 
verstandnis mit dem Autor. 

[On p. 17, however, Ihle gives these three species as doubtful synonyms of 
Cyclosalpa pinnata. ] 


Schulze (1912a, 27) considers that Thalia Browne should be 
classified as Salpa, while Ihle (1g12a, 15) places Thalia as a doubt- 
ful synonym of Cyclosalpa. 

Apstein (1915a, 186) cites maxima as type of Salpa. 

In connection with this case the point might well be mentioned 
that while Gmelin (1790a, 3129-3130) cites the original It species 
of Salpa under the generic name Salpa, Bruguiére (17922 [or 1789, 
teste Sherborn 1902a, 128], x, 178-183) cites 9 of them under the 
generic name Biphora,” and one of these is maxima (type of Salpa, 
teste Apstein). Ihle (1912a, 27) gives Biphora as synonym of Salpa. 
Whether Biphora complicates the question of Salpa or not, is not 
evident from the premises submitted. 

The petitioners ask that Salpa be protected, and from the refer- 
ences they give they apparently have in mind a protection from 
Dagysa 1773. 

On basis of the premises submitted, supplemented by the details 
given in the foregoing, the Secretary draws the following conclu- 
sions : 

(1) Dagysa 1773 is available from its publication in 1773. 

(2) The case is presented with evidence that is not complete 
enough to permit more than a tentative opinion ; 


60 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLS 73 


(3) Assuming (a) that the case of Salpa 1775 is not complicated 
by Biphora 1792 [or 1789], and (b) that Dagysa notata 1790 is 
congeneric with S. maxima, and (c) that maxima is the correct geno- 
type of Salpa, the case of Dagysa 1773 vs, Salpa 1775 appears to be 
a very simple case of the priority of Dagysa 1773 over Salpa 1775, 
but 

(4) No transfer of name from one group to another appears to 
be necessary, and 

(5) No evidence is presented involving names of larval forms; 

(6) Accordingly, no special complications appear to be present 
such as exist in the case of Holothuria. 

(7) The evidence is therefore still lacking that the strict application 
of the Rules in this case would result in greater confusion than uni- 
formity. 

In view of the foregoing data the Secretary recommends that 
the Commission adopt as its Opinion the following : 

(1) If Dagysa 1773, type notata, is a synonym of Salpa 1775, 
the Law of Priority should be applied, unless it can be shown that 
a strict application of the Rules will result in greater confusion than 
uniformity. 

(2) The evidence is apparently contradictory and incomplete. 

(3) See also recommendation to table, page 69. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 10 Commissioners: Allen, Bather (part), 
Blanchard, Hartert, Jordan (D.S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skin- 
net oteyneger, Stiles: 

Opinion dissented from (in part) by 1 Commissioner: Bather. 

Opinion dissented from by 4 Commissioners, who vote to retain 
Salpa under Suspension of Rules: Apstein, Handlirsch, Hoyle, Kolbe. 

Bather: I do not quite concur in Clause 1 of the Opinion drafted 
by the Secretary. 

Dagysa 1773 is a generic name without a specific name. It was 
not till 1790 that any species included in Dagysa received a name 
that could be quoted as that of the genotype. There are zoologists 
who, on this ground alone would hold Dagysa to be preoccupied by 
Salpa Forskal 1775 (assuming their identity). 

But the identity of Salpa (with genotype S. maxima) and Dagysa 
(with genotype D. notata) is not admitted by all the Appellants ; and 
the doubt is due to the insufficient description of Dagysa. 

It must also be conceded that, even if the publication by Hawkes- 
worth can be brought within the rules, it was not in very good form 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 OI 


and was so obscure that it escaped the search of even a careful in- 
vestigator like Sherborn. 

I therefore conclude that the continued use of Salpa should not 
be affected by the existence of Dagysa; and that Dagysa should not 
be used until, and unless, it be definitely proved to denote some 
genus that is not Salpa. 

I agree, however, with Clause 2 of the drafted Opinion, and 
therefore I concur in Clause 3. 

Hoyle: I am of the opinion that the use of Dagysa for Salpa will 
cause much confusion. Salpa is a name used not only by specialists 
but in laboratories, text-books and numerous books of travel. Under 
these circumstances I am obliged to divide my vote on the final ques- 
tion as I cannot vote for or against im toto. 


CASE” OF APPENDICULARIA 1820, OIKOPLEURA 1831, 
APPENDICULARIA 1874, APPENDICULA 1915, 
AND APPENDICULARHDA 
Chamisso and Eysenhardt (1820a,* 362) propose the genus A ppen- 
dicularia, with the monotype A. flagellum 1820, a new Artic species 
taken in St. Lawrence Gulf [Bay], Bering Strait. They give no 
generic diagnosis, but they print a short specific diagnosis and they 
figure the species. | 
As shown above (footnote 7), Mertens (1831a, 205-220) claims 
to have found this same species (A. flagellum) in its type locality 
(St. Lawrence Gulf [Bay], Bering Strait) and definitely to have 
recognized it as A. fagellum; he deliberately renames the genus as 
Otkopleura and the species as chamissonis. This species is the only 
one he cites for Oikopleura, hence it is genotype both by renaming 
and by monotypy. 
Accordingly, until it is proved that Mertens was wrong in con- 
sidering the two animals identical, Oikopleura 1831 must be con- 


* Appendicularia Chamisso and Eysenhardt, 1820a, 362, monotype flagellum 
1820a, 312-363, pl. 31 fig. 4 (St. Lawrence Gulf [Bay], Bering Sea). 

Oikopleura Mertens, 1831a, 205 (Appendicularia 1820 renamed), mt. O. 
chamissonis 1831a, 205-220, pls. 1-2 (A. flagellum renamed), (same locality, 
but different collection). 

Appendicularia Fol, 1847a, xlix, mt. sicula 1874a, xlix-liii, pl. 18 figs. 1-5 
(at Messina). 

Appendicula Bartsch, 1915a, 145, tod. Appendicularia sicula. New name 
for Appendicularia Fol. 

* The exact date, 1820 or 1821, cannot be definitely determined from the 
copy consulted by the Secretary, but the Appellants give it as 1820. 


62 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


sidered a synonym of Appendicularia 1820, and O. chamissonis 
1831 an absolute synonym of A. flagellum 1820. 

Fol (1872a, 469) states that Oik. chamissonis is one of the three 
species of Oikopleura that is recognizably described and he adopts 
the generic name Orkopleura, but as shown above (footnote 6), he 
(1872a, 460) states that-the description of A. flagellum is so vague 
that he considers himself justified in using A ppendicularia in any way 
he may wish, and he adopts the French vernacular Appendiculaires 
as the family name. 

Further, as shown above (footnote 6), Fol (1874a, xlix) per- 
sists in his view that he may use Appendicularia in any way he de- 


sires, and he applies it to a new genus (“un noveau genre’) for: 


which he cites ‘‘ Cham.” as author, and in which he mentions only 
one form, Appendicularia sicula n. sp. 

Accordingly, Fol recognized Otkopleura, monotype O. chamis- 
sonis, but could not recognize its absolute synonym, 4 ppendicularia, 
monotype flagellum, further than that it belonged to the same family, 
so he uses Appendicularia for a new genus, which Chamisso never 
described, and he attributes this new genus of 1874 to Chamisso 1820. 
It is clear, therefore, (1) that nomenclatorially Appendicularia 1874 
is to be considered monotypic, (2) that it is to be attributed to Fol, 
and (3) that it is preoccupied by Appendicularia 1820 (syn. Oiko- 
pleura 1831). 

The names Appendicularia 1820 and A. flagellum 1820 have found 
their way into certain standard text-books,” and a family name Ap- 
pendiculartide exists which is based upon Appendicularia 1820. 

Apstein (19g15a, 186) cites A. sicula as type of Appendicularia 
Fol, 1874, and Bartsch (1915a, 145) proposes the name A ppendicula, 
type sicula, for Appendicularta 1874, because it is preoccupied by 
Appendicularia 1820 [syn. Oikopleura}. 

The Appellants submit that 4). flagellum 1820 is unrecognizable, 
but they do not discuss the facts that Mertens recognized it and 
renamed it, and that Fol considers that Oikopleura chamissonis 


* Leunis (1883a, 813) recognizes the family Appendiculariide, with the 
genus “ Appendicularia Cham.” and the species “ A. flagellum Cham.” 

Claus (1885a, 586) recognizes the family Appendicularide, and the 
genus “ Oikopleura Mertens (A ppendicularia Cham.).” 

Knauer (1887a, 46) recognizes Appendicularidxe, with “ Appendicularia 
Cham. Fritillaria Fol, ete.” 

Parker and Haswell (1901a, 24) recognize “ Appendicularia (Oikopleura),” 
but (p. 22) they cite Appendicularia and Oikopleura as distinct genera in 
Appendicularudx and they do not quote the author of the generic names. 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 63 


[namely Ap. flagellum] was, up to 1872, one of the three species of 
Oikopleura [namely Appendicularia 1820] recognizably described, 
and they request that the Rules be suspended in order to validate 
Appendicularia Fol, 1874a, which otherwise would have to be re- 
named, and, they add, “Der Name der Ordnung A ppendicularidxe 
wirde verschwinden.” 

Appendicularia Fol, 1874a, and Fritillaria Fol, 1872a," may be 
taken as samples of several cases of nomenclature that have come to 
the attention of the Secretary, and in considering them it will be well 
to hold in mind that they by no means represent isolated or unique 
cases. In fact, the decision on these two cases will constitute a prece- 
dent upon basis of which a number of cases may depend. 

It seems clear that this represents a case in which, if the Rules 
are enforced, a generic name used by some authors for one group 
(Appendicularia Fol, 1874, type sicula) will be transferred back 
to another group (A ppendicularia Cham. and Eysenh., type flagellum) 
mentioned under this same name in standard text-books as late as 
Claus (1885a) and Leunis (1886a), and this action would suppress 
the name Ozikopleura 1831 (which is an absolute synonym of Ap- 
pendicularia 1820); but the premise of the petitioners, that the 
family [not ordinal] name Appendiculari[i]d% would disappear, 
is not clear. From the standpoint that the Rules would require a 
transfer of the generic name from one genus to another, the Appel- 
lants seem to have a stronger case than they appear to have recog- 
nized, but it would seem that they have presented only part of the 
facts, and that they are in error as to the required change of Ap- 
pendiculari|i|d2. 

Again, what will be the effect of admitting to special privilege 
a case like this, in which an author claims the right to use in any 
way he wishes a name which is obscure to him (Fol), but which an- 
other author (Mertens) claims to have identified correctly with a 
given animal collected in the original type locality, especially when 
the name in question belongs to a group which even its leading 
authors of modern times have not yet brought to the nomenclatorial 
status of a genotype basis? 

The case of Appendicula 1915 vs. Appendicularia 1874 (pre- 
occupied) is a very simple case of the application of the law of Pri- 
ority to one and the same genus, and would not produce much con- 
fusion. But the Appellants have presented their case so incompletely 
that it is not clear to the Secretary whether it would be wiser to sup- 
plant Oikopleura 1831 by Appendicularia 1820 or to suppress A p- 
pendicularia entirely. In view of the danger involved in validating 

5 


64 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


nomenclatorial work based upon the principle advanced by Fol, it 
is not at all impossible, though it is not yet clear, that the most far- 
sighted course might perhaps be to suspend the Rules by validating 
Oikopleura 1831, in spite of the fact that it is antedated by Ap- 
pendicularia 1820, and at the same time to suppress Appendicularia 
1872 in favor of Appendicula 1915 in order not to admit nomencla- 
torial practices of this nature. 

On basis of the foregoing data, the Secretary recommends that the 
Commission adopt as its Opinion the following: 

(1) Appendicularia Chamisso and Eysenhardt, 1820, has priority 
over Oikopleura Mertens, 1831. 

(2) Appendicularia Fol, 1874, is a homonym of Appendicularia 
1820, and should be suppressed unless it can be shown that a strict 
application of the Rules will result in greater confusion than uni- 
formity. If suppressed, the name Appendicula 1915 is available as 
substitute. 

(3) The contention of the Appellants that a change of the ordinal 
[read family] name Appendiculari[ijd# is involved is not made 
clear to the Commission in the premises contained in the presenta- 
tion of the case. 

(4) See also proposition to table, page 69. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Allen, Bather, Blan- 
chard, Hartert, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, 
Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by 2 Commissioners, who vote to retain 
Appendicularia Fol under Suspension of Rules: Apstein, Kolbe. 

Not voting, 5 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Handlirsch, Horvath, 
Roule, Simon. 


CASE* OF DOLIOLUM 1823, PYROSOMA 1804, DOLIOLUM 1834, 
DOLIOLETTA 1894, AND DOLIOLID AS 

Otto (1823a, 313) describes “ Doliolum mediterraneum” (type 

specimen deposited in Zool. Museum, Breslau), an animal collected, . 

free swimming on the surface, Gulf of Naples. 





* Doliolum Otto, 1823a, 313, mt. mediterraneum 1823a, 313-314, pl. 42 fig. 4. 

Doliolum Quoy and Gaimard, 1834a, 599, contains denticulatum 1834a, 590- 
601, pl. 89 figs. 25-28 (from “la cote de Vile Vankiro”) and caudatum 
1834a, 601-602, pl. 89 figs. 29-30—Apstein, I915a, 186 (cites denticulatum 
as type). 

Dolioletta Borgert, 1894a, 14 (subg. of Doliolum) contains Doliolum gegen- 
bauri, tritonis, nationalis, challengeri, denticulatum 1834, affine, ehrenbergi. 

Doliolina Borgert, 1894a, 14-18 (subg. of Doliolum) contains Doliolum 
miilleri, krohm, rarum. 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 65 


Quoy and Gaimard (1834a, 599) proposed Doliolum as a name for 
a new genus to contain D. denticulatum (sur la cote de Vile Vankiro) 
and D. caudatum (La Nouvelle-Holland et Nouvelle-Zéland). They 
had full knowledge of the existence of Doliolum Otto, 1832, as is 
shown by their statement quoted in footnote 6 (see above, p. 44). 

The Appellants (see Statement of Case) consider that Doliolum 
1823 is a “ wohl durch Phronima ausgefressene Pyrosma,” but they 
do not state whether this opinion is based upon a re-examination of 
the type specimen that was deposited at Breslau. 

One of the Appellants (Borgert, 1894a, 14-18) has divided Dolio- 
lum 1834 into two subgenera, Dolioletta and Doliolina. He desig- 
nates genotypes for neither, but includes in Dolioletta the genotype 
of Doliolum 1834, and thus uses a new subgeneric name for what 
he apparently considers the typical subgenus of Doliolum 1834, 
a subgenus for which, on his own premises, he should have used 
Doliolum s. str. instead of proposing the new name Dolioletta. This 
latter point has apparently remained unnoticed by all his colleagues. 
Bartsch has brought it to the attention of the Commission. 

On basis of the foregoing data, the Secretary recommends that 
the Commission adopt as its Opinion the following: 

(1) According to the premises presented by the Appellants, Dolio- 
lum Otto, 1823, type mediterraneum, is a synonym of Pyrosoma 1804. 

(2) Doliolum Quoy and Gaimard, 1834, is a homonym of Dolio- 
lum 1823, and as such should be rejected, unless it can be shown that 
a strict application of the Rules will result in greater confusion than 
uniformity. 

(3) The presentation of the case by the Appellants is incomplete, 
as it fails to consider Dolioletta Borgert, 1894. 

(4) The premise that a new name will have to be proposed for 
Doliolum 1834 is incorrect, for one of the Appellants has already 
proposed Dolioletta for the typical subgenus of Doliolum 1834, 
which presumably will supplant Doliolum 1834. 

(5) If the Rules were suspended in order to validate Doliolum 
1834, Dolioletta 1894 would fall into synonymy unless its genotype 
(apparently undesignated at present) is shown to belong in a genus 
or a subgenus other than that which contains Dol. denticulatum 
1834. Accordingly, so far as data are available, Doliolum 1834 must 
be suppressed if the Rules are applied and Dolioletta 1894 must be 
suppressed if the Rules are suspended. 

(6) If Doliolum 1834 is suppressed, Dolioletta 1894 can best be 
taken as the name of the genus (so far as the foregoing data show) 
and a new family name should then be based upon it. This is a 


66 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


very simple and clear application of the Rules, and the evidence thus 
far presented does not carry with it a conviction that greater con- 
fusion than uniformity would thereby result. 

(7) See also motion to table, page 69. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Allen, Bather, Blan- 
chard, Hartert, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, 
Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by 3 Commissioners, who vote to retain 
Doliolum Quoy and Gaimard, 1834, under Suspension of Rules: 
Apstein, Handlirsch, Kolbe. | 

Not voting, 4 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Horvath, Roule, 
Simon. 


CASE* OF FRETIELARIA) 1842, FRITILLARIA 1851, PRIME AA 
1872, AND FRITILLUM 1915 


Quoy and Gaimard’s (1883a, 10) original reference is to “ notre 
genre Fretillaire que nous avons rencontré dans plusieurs mers, notam- 
ment aux environ du cap de Bonne-Fspérance, ou il donnait a leau 
une teinte rouge brun, bien que chaque individu n’ettt qu’une ligne 
de longeur.” In a footnote on the same page they add: “C'est 
probablement le genre Oikopleura de Mertens,” 1830. 

In the same publication, Quoy and Gaimard (1833a, 304-306, pl. 
26 figs. 4-7) discuss the new species Oikopleura bifurcata which 
presumably is the same form referred to on page 10 as “ notre gente 
Fretillaire,”. although the name Fretillaire is not mentioned on pp. 
304-306. Regarding Oikopleura bifurcata they say (page 304) : 
étant sur les sondes de banc des Aiguilles, en vue de terre, et vis-a-vis la 
baie d’ Algoa, nous vimes—par intervalle, dans d’assez grands espaces, et 
par zones, la mer devenir rouge brun. En y plongeant un filet d’ étamins 
nous reconntimes que cette couleur était due a une énorme quantité de petits 
animaux, longs d’ une ligne or deux, etc. 


* Fretillaire Quoy and Gaimard, 1833a, 10, mt. Oikopleura bifurcata 1833a, 
304-306, pl. 26 figs. 4-7 (Cape of Good Hope and Algoa Bay). 

Fretillaria Agassiz, 1842a, Acalaphe, 4, (for Fretillaire 1833, hence) mt. 
Oikopleura bifiurcata 1833. 

Fritillaria Huxley, 1851a, 505 (for Fretillaire 1833, hence) mt. Oikopleura 
bifurcata 1833. 

Appendiculaires Fol, 1872a, 460, 492, family contains Oikopleura, Fritil- 
laria, Kowalewskaia; 1874a, xlix, adds Appendicularia n. g. 

Fritillaria Fol, 1872a, 473-481, contains furcata (syn. Eurycercus pellucidus 
Busch, 1851), megachile, aplostoma, formica, urticans, (type not desig- 
nated).—Apstein, 1915a, 186 cites pellucida, 1851, as type. 

Fritillum Bartsch, 19t5a, 145-146, tod. Fritillaria meget 1872. (New 
name for Fritillaria 1872 not 1851.) 


- 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 67 


From the foregoing it is clear that, nomenclatorially, Quoy and 
Gaimard never proposed the genus Fritillaria, but that they used a 
provisional French name “ Fretillaire,” for a genus, and that they 
recognized this, prior to publication, as probably identical with 
Oikopleura Mertens, 1831. 

The genus Oikopleura (see footnote 7) was published by Mertens 
(1831a, 205-220) as a monotypic genus based upon O. chamissonis, 
which Mertens considered identical with Chamisso’s A ppendicularia 
flagellum and which he therefore deliberately renamed. 

Agassiz (1842a, 4) quotes the Latin name “ Fretillaria Quoy et 
G. Zool. de l’Astr. Fretum, Beroide.” Although he does not give 
page reference to Quoy and Gaimard it seems legitimate to conclude 
that he refers to Fretillaire 1833, p. 10, hence the type species of 
Fretillaria 1842 is Oikopleura bifurcata 1833. 

Huxley (1851a, 595) refers to the genus “ Fritillaria Quoy and 
Gaimard,” for which he accepts the name Ovzkopleura bifurcata. 
Thus, Fritillaria 1851 equals Fretillaria 1842, with identical type 
species. 

As shown above (footnote 6) Fol (1872a, 460) considered that 
since Fritillarta 1851 [Fretillaire 1833] was described in a manner 
that he considered vague, he had a right to use it in any way he 
desired, and he applied it to the species F. furcata (Vogt), and four 
new species; and later Fol (1874a, xlix), reaffirming his right to 
use, in any way he desires, names which he considers unrecognizable 
in their original application, continues to use Fritillaria in the sense 
he proposed in 1872, 

Accordingly, Fritillaria 1872 should be construed as a new generic 
name that is preoccupied by Fritillaria 1851. The name Fritillaria 
1872 has found its way into certain text books, such as Leunis 
(1883a), Claus (18852), etc. 

Apstein (1915a, 186) designates F. pellucida* Busch, 1851, as 
type of Fritillaria 1872. 

Bartsch (1915a, 146) proposes the name Fritillum (tod. Fritil- 
laria megachile) as substitute for Fritillaria Fol, 1872. 

According to the premises presented by the Appellants: 

(1) Fritillaria Huxley, 1851, would become synonym of Oizko- 
pleura Mertens, 1831 and (2) a new name would have to be given 
to Fritillaria Fol, 1872, in case the Rules are applied. 








*° Fol (1872a, 476) gives Eurycercus pellucidus Busch 1851, as synonym of 
his first species F. furcata. 


68 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


In regard to the first premise, it may be pointed out that Oiko- 
pleura Mertens, 1831, is a monotypic genus based upon Ovk. chamis- 
sonis, and further that Oikopleura is a deliberate renaming of Ap- 
pendicularia Chamisso and Eysenhardt, monotype Ap. flagellum (re- 
named Oikopleura chamissonis with same type locality). The Ap- 
pellants claim (see case of Appendicularia) that the type of this genus 
(Ap. flagellum [=Oikopleura chamissonis]) is not recognizable. 
Fol (1872a, p. 469) claims that Oik. chamissonis (=Ap. flagellum 
renamed) is one of the three species of Oikopleura [t.e., Appen- 
dicularia| that is recognizable. 

Accordingly, the Appellants’ presentation of the case is not suffi- 
ciently clear to serve as final premises for decision. 

If Oikopleura bifurcata is a true Oikopleura, Fritillaria 1851 be- 
comes a synonym of Appendicularia 1820, since Otkopleura 1831 is 
Appendicularia 1820 renamed. Accordingly, under this premise, 
Fritillaria 1851 can become valid only in case its type species is 
placed in some genus or subgenus other than that to which chamus- 
sonis = flagellum is assigned. 

The statement that another name would have to be used for Fritil- 
aria 1872 was, on basis of the premises, correct, and Bartsch (1915a) 
has proposed such a name (Fritillum). 

On basis of the presentation by the Appellants, supplemented by 
the foregoing data, the Secretary finds that: 

(1) The presentation of the case is incomplete ; 

(2) If all of the essential facts are now before us, Fritillaria 
1872 presents a very simple case that calls for the application of the 
Rule of Homonyms and the Law of Priority; 

(3) The Appellants have not yet shown that an application of the 
Rules in this case will result in greater confusion than uniformity, 
especially since a suspension of the Rules would tend to validate 
Fol’s principle that when an author considers as obscure the descrip- 
tion upon which a name is based, he is at liberty to use this name in 
any way he may desire. 

On basis of the foregoing data, the Secretary recommends that 
the Commission adopt as its Opinion the following: | 

(1) As Fritilaria Huxley, 1851 (=Fretillaria Agassiz, 1842) is 
based upon an animal (Ovrkopleura bifurcata) with known type lo- 
cality and said to occur in large numbers, it would appear possible 
to determine definitely what this organism is. 

(2) If Otkopleura bifurcata is a true Oikopleura, Fritillaria 1851 
becomes a synonym of Appendicularia 1820 (syn. Oikopleura 1831). 





| 
| 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 69 


(3) Fritillaria Fol, 1872, is a homonym of Fritillaria Huxley, 
1851, and should be suppressed unless it can be shown that a strict 
application of the Rules will result in greater confusion than uni- 
formity. If suppressed, Fritillum 1915 is available as a substitute. 

(4) See also recommendation to table, page 69 (below). 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Allen, Bather, Blan- 
chard, Hartert, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, 
Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by 2 Commissioners, who vote to retain 
Fritillaria Fol, 1874, under Suspension of Rules: Apstein, Kolbe. 

Not voting, 5 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Handlirsch, Hor- 
vath, Roule, Simon. 


MOTION TO TABLE THE CASES OF APPENDICULARIA, DOLIO- 
LUM, FRITILLARIA, AND SALPA 

Referring further to the cases of Appendicularia 1874, Doliolum 
1834, Fritillaria 1851, and Salpa 1775, the Secretary recommends, 
on basis of reasons given below, that the Commission adopt as its 
Opinion the following: 

(1) The Appellants have not presented evidence that convinces 
the Commission that the strict application of the Rules in these 
cases will result in greater confusion than uniformity, hence the 
Commission does not at present see its way clear to suspend the 
Rules. 

(2) The cases in question are herewith laid upon the table indefi- 
nitely, but without prejudice, in order to give to the Appellants an 
opportunity to present more satisfactory and convincing evidence in 
support of their position. 

(3) The Commission is of the opinion that the complaints in 
respect to confusion in the nomenclature of the Tunicates are due 
to two causes in particular, namely (a) the principle of genotypes 
does not appear to have been consistently applied, and (b) rules 
available to authors of new names have not been adopted by said 
authors. 

(4) The Commission urgently recommends that specialists in 
the tunicates determine without unnecessary delay the proper geno- 
types, in accordance with Article 30 of the Rules, as a prerequisite 
to a satisfactory basis for an intelligent consideration of the nomen- 
clature of the group. 

REASONS FOR THE FOREGOING RECOMMENDATION.—The foregoing 
recommendation is based upon the following premises: 


7O SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


(1) If any serious attempt has been made to apply the Rules con- 
sistently to the tunicate generic names by designating the genotypes 
in accord with Article 30, this fact has not been brought to the 
attention of the Commission, accordingly, specialists in this group 
do not appear to have brought their subject to the point where it 
seems wise to set an example that might inhibit or handicap thorough 
nomenclatorial work of that kind. 

(2) The presentation of the cases as submitted by the Appellants 
has been shown to contain a number of errors, and to be very in- 
complete. 

(3) Only four of the Commissioners (one of these is also one 
of the Appellants) in their preliminary expression of opinions, ap- 
pear to be inclined to the view that more than one of the six cases 
submitted call for a possible suspension of the Rules, accordingly, if 
these cases come to final vote at present, they are doomed to rejection. 

(4) As these are the first cases brought forward for action under 
the Plenary Power, the Appellants were at‘a disadvantge in not 
having precedents upon which they might judge the policy of the 
Commission, hence they had no way of knowing how complete or 
convincing an argument might be necessary to induce the Commis- 
sion to suspend the Rules. 

(5) By laying these cases on the table, instead of rejecting them, 
the Commission will not only establish the precedent that suspension 
will not be looked upon favorably on basis of incomplete data, but 
it will escape the possible misinterpretation of doing an injustice to 
a group of men by rejecting their proposition before they had any 
way of knowing the policy the Commission would adopt in con- 
struing its duty under the Plenary Power resolutions. 

(6) Finally, if the cases are tabled instead of being rejected, the 
Commission can act upon them without further public notice. 

Motion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Allen, Bather, Blan- 
chard, Hartert, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, 
Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. 

Not voting, 7 Commissioners: Apstein, Dautzenberg, Handlirsch, 
Horvath, Kolbe, Roule, Simon. 

The final results are as follows: The cases of Appendicularia 1874, 
Doliolum 1834, Fritillaria 1851, and Salpa 1775, are tabled without 
prejudice in order to give the Appellants an opportunity to present 
more satisfactory and convincing evidence in support of their position. 

The case of Pyrosoma is decided in harmony with the Code, and 
the result is identical with what the Appellants desired to obtain 
under Suspension. 





NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 7 


OPINION 77 


THIRTY-FIVE GENERIC NAMES IN PROTOZOA, COELENTERATA, 
TREMATODA, CESTODA, CIRRIPEDIA, TUNICATA, AND Pisces 
PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL LisT OF GENERIC NAMES 


SUMMARY.—The following names are hereby placed in the Official List 
of Generic Names: Protozoa: Arcella. COELENTERATA: Hydra. ‘TREMA- 
TODA: Hemiurus, Schistosoma. CrstopaA: Anoplocephala, Hymenole- 
pis, Momesia, Stilesia, Thysanosoma, CuirripEDIA: Lepas. TUNICATA: 
Pyrosoma. Pisces: Acipenser, Callionymus, Chimera, Clupea, Coryphena, 
Cottus, Cyclopterus, Cyprinus, Diodon, Gadus, Gasterosteus, Gobius, Lophius, 
Mormyrus, Mullus, Murena, Osmerus, Perca, Salmo, Scomber, Scorpena, 
Silurus, Syngnathus, Zeus. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—A list of 39 generic names, submitted for 
inclusion in the Official List of Generic, Names, was issued in the 
Secretary’s Circular Letter no. 35 (March, 1917), which was mailed 
to about 350 zoologists and zoological institutions, and was pub- 
lished by Monticelli in the Monitore zoologico. In the replies re- 
ceived questions have been raised in respect to 4 of these names to 
wit, Esoxr, Exocetus, Ophidion, and Platessa, and although it is 
thought that the points can be easily settled these four have been 
tabled, without prejudice, for further consideration. No objection 
of any kind has been raised to any of the remaining 35 names. 


ABBREVIATIONS 


A.= Proposed for Official List by Apstein, t915a. [See Opinion 74, 
Ds 32. 

HSW.= Case has been studied by a Committee from the Helminthological 
Society of Washington, D. C., is guaranteed and recommended to 
the Commission by said Society. 

J.= Case has been studied for the Commission by Commissioner David 
Starr Jordan, and the name recommended by him with the 
genotype cited. 

mt. = Monotypic. 

S.= Secretary of the Commission has verified original generic and spe- 
cific references, considers the generic name available and valid 
under the Rules. and considers the type designation correct. 

tod.—= Type by original designation. 
tsd.— Type by subsequent designation. 

Bibliographic abbreviations taken from Stiles & Hassall’s Index Catalog of 
Medical and Veterinary Zoology. 


72 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


PROTOZOA 


Arcella Ehrenberg, 1830a (1832a), 60, 73, (40, 53); tod. A. vulgaris Ehrenb., 
1830a (1832a), 60, 73, 81, 89, 90, 95 (40, 53, 61, 69, 70, 75), pl. 1 fig. 6. 
[Ay Ss] 

COELENTERATA 


Hydra Linn., 1758a, 816; tsd. H. polypus Linn., 1758a, 816, (syn. vulgaris, 
wridis). [As S.] 


‘TREMATODA 


Hemiurus Rud., 1809a, 38; tsd. Fasciola appendiculata Rud., 1802, 78 (type 
host Clupea alosa; Europe). [A; HSW; S.] [Not Hemiurus Gerv., 
1855, mammal; Hemiura Ridgway, 1888, bird.] 

Schistosoma Weinland, 1858a [prior to Sep. 30], 87; mt. Distoma hematobium 
Bilharz, 1852a, 72 (type host Homo; Egypt). [HSW; S.] [Absolute 
synonyms: Gynecophorus Dies., 1858 (type hxematobius); Bilharzia 
Cobbold, 1859 (type hematobia) ; Thecosoma Moquin-Tandon, 1860 (type 
hematobium) ; Schistosomum Rk. Blanch., 18905 (type hematobium).] 
[Not Schistosoma Brady, 1877, arach.] 


CESTODA 


Anoplocephala E. Blanchard, 1848e, 344-345; tsd. Tenia perfoliata Gceze, 
1782a, 43, 353 (type host Equus caballus; Europe). [HSW; S.] [Not 
Anoplocephala Stal, 1870, hemipteron.] 

Hymenolepis Weinland, 1858a, 52; tsd. Tenia diminuta Rud., 1819a, 689 
(type host Mus rattus; Brazil). [HSW; S.] 

Moniezia R. Blanchard, 18911, 187, 194, 195 (2, 9, 10); tod. Tenia expansa 
Rud., 1805a, 38 (type host Ovis aries; Alfort Museum, France). 
PHSW s"S:] 

Stilesia Rail., 1893a, 277-278; tod. Tzxnia globipunctata Rivolta, 1874 (type 
host Ovis aries). [HSW; Secretary of Commission has been unable 
to verify original publication for T. globipunctata, but except for this 
one point he agrees; Railliet dates T. globipunctata as 1877, but Mon- 
ticelli gives it as 1874.] 

Thysanosoma Dies., 1835a, 105; mt. T. actinioides Dies., 1835a, 106 (type host 
Cervus dichotomus; Brazil). [HSW; S.] | 





CIRRIPEDIIA 


Lepas Linn., 1758a, 667; tsd. L. anatifera Linn., 1758a, 668. [A; Case guaran- 
teed to Commission by H. A. Pilsbry ; Sa 


TUNICATA 


Pyrosoma Peron, 1804, 437, 440, pl. 72, mt. P. atlanticum Peron 1804, 440, 
pl. 72. [Aug. 18 or earlier, 1804.] [A;S.] [See Opinion No. 76, p. 47.] 


PISCES 


Acipenser Linn., 1758a, 237; tsd. A. sturio Linn., 1758a, 237. [A;J;S.] 
Callionymus Linn., 1758a, 249; tsd. C. lyra Linn., 1758a, 249. [A; J; S.] 


NO. I OPINIONS 68 TO 77 73 


Chimera Linn., 1758a, 236; tsd. C. monstrosa Linn., 1758a, 236. [A; J; S.] 
Clupea Linn., 1758a, 317; tsd. C. harengus Linn., 1758a, 317. [A; J; S.] 
Coryhena Linn., 1758a, 261; tsd. C. hippurus Linn., 1758a, 261. [A; J; S.] 
Cottus Linn., 1758a, 264; tsd. C. gobio Linn., 1758a, 265. [A; J; S.] 
Cyclopterus Linn., 1758a, 260; tsd. C. lumpus Linn., 1758a, 260. [A; J; S.] 
Cyprinus Linn., 1758a, 320; tsd. C. carpio Linn., 1758a, 320. [A; J; Leunis: 
mt; 9. 
Diodon Linn., 1758a, 334; tsd. D. hystrix Linn., 1758a, 335. [A; J; S.] 
Gadus Linn., 1758a, 251; tsd. G. morhua Linn., 1758a, 252. [A; J; S.] [Not 
Gadus Dejean, 1821, coleopt.] 
Gasterosteus Linn., 1758a, 295; tsd. G. aculeatus Linn., 1758a, 295. [A; J; S.] 
Gobius Linn., 1758a, 262; tsd. G. niger Linn., 1758a, 262. [A; J; S.] 
Lophius Linn., 1758a, 236; tsd. L. piscatorius Linn., 1758a, 236. [A; J; S.] 
Mormyrus Linn., 1758a, 327; tsd. M. cyprinoides Linn., 1758a, 327. [A; J: S.] 
Mullus Linn., 1758a, 299; tsd. M. barbatus Linn., 1758a, 2909. [A; J; S.] 
Murena Linn., 1758a, 244; tsd. M. helena Linn., 1758a, 244. [A; J; S.] 
Osmerus Linn., 1758a, 310; tsd. Salmo eperlanus Linn., 1758a, 310. [A; J; S.] 
Perca Linn., 1758a, 289; tsd. P. fluviatilis Linn., 1758a, 289. [A; J; S.] 
Salmo Linn., 1758a, 308; tsd. S. salar Linn., 1758a, 308. [A; J; S.] 
Scomber Linn., 1758a, 297; tsd. S. scombrus Linn., 1758a, 297. [A; J; S.] 
Scorpena Linn., 1758a, 266; tsd. S. porcus Linn., 1758a, 206. [A; J; S.] 
Silurus Linn., 1758a, 304: tsd. S. glanis Linn., 1758a, 304. [A; J; S.] 
Syngnathus Linn., 1758a, 336; tsd. S. acus Linn., 1758a, 337. [A; J; S.] 
Zeus Linn., 1758a, 266; tsd. Z. faber Linn., 1758a, 267. [A; J; S.] 


Discussion.—In view of the foregoing premises, the Secretary 
recommends that the 4 names FEsox, Exocetus, Ophidion, and 
Platessa, be tabled, without prejudice, for further consideration, and 
that the remaining 35 names be included in the Official List of 
Generic Names. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, 
Bather, Blanchard, Dautzenberg, Handlirsch (part), Hartert, Hor- 
vath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Skinner, 
Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, 4 Commissioners: Kolbe, Roule, Simon, Stejneger. 
Handlirsch not voting on the 2 Trematode and 4 Cestode names, 
















SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 
VOLUME 73, NUMBER 2 


OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 





OPINIONS 78 TO 81 





—qesee@eces 


AME: artes 


(PUBLICATION 2747) 


CITY OF WASHINGTON 
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 
FEBRUARY 9, 1924 














SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 


VOLUME 73, NUMBER 2 


OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


OPINIONS 78 TO 81 





Peececcee® 


(PUBLICATION 2747) 


CITY OF WASHINGTON 
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 
FEBRUARY 9, 1924 


The Lord Baltimore Press 


BALTIMORE, MD., U. 3. A. 





OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 
OPINIONS 78 TO 81 


OPINION 78 
CASE OF DERMACENTOR ANDERSONI VS. DERM.ACENTOR VENUSTUS 
SUMMARY.—On basis of the premises presented, the Commission is of the 
Opinion that Dermacentor venustus dates from Marx in Neumann, 1897, type 
specimen Collection Marx No. 122 (U. S. National Museum), from Ovis aries, 


Texas, and that Dermacentor andersont dates from Stiles, 1908, holotype 
U. S. P. H. & M. H. S. 9467, from Woodman, Montana. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—This case has been submitted to the Com- 
mission by W. Dwight Pierce in the following letter, W. Dwight 
Pierce to Stiles: 


Feb. 18, 1920: The recent publication of Wolbach’s excellent monograph 
on Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, again brings critically before the medical 
profession the confusion as to the name of the spotted fever tick. In order 
that we may get at this thing right and forever legally settle this name I 
appeal to the International Commission to give us a definite ruling on the 
proper name of the Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever Tick. In order that this 
ruling may be based on absolutely fair and just premises I would request that 
statements be requested of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Mr. Nathan Banks, Mr. F. C. 
Bishopp, and Dr. Nuttall, and others if necessary, these statements to be used 
as briefs and to be published with the ruling. My personal conclusions are as 
follows: 

1. That there is no question whatever that Dermacentor andersoni Stiles 
(1905) refers to the Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever Tick. 

2. That there is debatable ground as to whether D. venustus Banks (1908) 
is conspecific and refers to the fever tick. 

3. The first reference I find to D. venustus Marx mss. is in Neumann (1897) 
as a synonym of D. reticulatus Fabricius, undescribed. 

4. Dermacentor andersoni Stiles was described as the fever tick, in 1905, 
(U. S. Treas. Dept., Hyg. Lab., Bull. 20, pp. 1-119) and the description 
strengthened in 1908 and 1910. 

5. In 1908 Banks drew up the description, as a new species, of D. venustus 
(Marx mss.), from the Marx material, which was subsequently examined by 
Stiles, and found to consist of three lots of material of at least two species. 
Stiles definitely picked from Bank’s type material Marx No. 122 as type of 


SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS, VOL. 73, No. 2 


2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


the species D. venustus. This was Texas material. Since both Marx and 
Banks confused more than one species and neither designated an individual 
type from the material, Stiles’ designation is valid. 

6. In 1910 Stiles differentiated between the two species D. andersoni and 
D. venustus, using the designated type individuals as basis of his differentiation. 

7. It therefore appears to me that D. andersoni not only is definitely the 
fever tick, but that it antedates D. venustus Banks, which may have originally 
had specimens of the fever tick contained within its series, but which when 
typically defined according to our laws of nomenclature is a very different 
species, with a range extraterritorial to the fever area. 

8. The entire medical profession would welcome a final legal decision on 
this name at the earliest possible moment. 


In accordance with Pierce’s suggestion, the Secretary has invited 
Mr. Banks, Mr. Bishopp, and Doctor Nuttall to submit statements. 
No reply has been received from Nuttall. 

Banks submits the following letter : 


Cambridge, Mass., April 29, 1920: As far as I am concerned there is no 
“question” as to the name of the Rocky Mt. Spotted Fever Tick, and no 
decisions of any committee can alter facts. D. venustus was published in 
1908, D. andersoni a few months later. All previous references to either name 
had nothing to do with the matter, as there was no description till that time. 
D. andersont of 1905 was not referred to as the fever tick but as the tick that 
did not carry the disease. 

Type label was placed on a certain vial of D. venustus at time of publication 
and anyone who examined the collection of the Bureau of Entomology would 
have found it. 

Later attempts at limitation of the name cannot alter the facts. 


Bishopp submits the following : 


Dallas, Texas, May 1, 1920: I am enclosing herewith a statement on this 
subject which I drew up in 1912, which I believe sets forth my viewpoint in a 
rather concise way. 


THE CORRECT NAME OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN SPOTTED 
FEVER TICK 


By F. C. BisHorr 


There is considerable confusion regarding the correct scientific name of the 
tick which transmits Rocky Mountain spotted fever. As the several statements 
which have been made upon this question do not seem to have cleared the 
matter up, it seems best to briefly review the situation and show the exact 
status of the question. 

Labels bearing the name D. venustus n. sp. were placed by Marx in vials con- 
taining specimens of ticks from Soldier, Idaho, Las Cruces, N. M., and Texas 
(on sheep). All of these specimens were deposited in the U. S. National 
Museum. No manuscript notes or drawings were left with this material. 

After the death of Dr. Marx, these specimens together with other material 
from the Marx collection, were sent to Prof. L. G. Neumann for study. In 


teen i tt i ttt a line 


NO. 2 OPINIONS 78 TO 81 3 


1897 Neumann, after studying this material, considered it the same as the 
European D. reticulatus, the manuscript name D. venustus being cited in 
identifying the specimens from the United States. 

In 1905 Stiles used the name andersoni for material from Montana, con- 
cluding that the species did not transmit the disease known as Rocky Moun- 
tain spotted fever. This was a nomen nudum as it was unaccompanied by a 
description or by a specific indication. In June, 1908, Banks, after studying 
all of the Marx material, described the species, using the Marx name 
D. venustus. He used one of the males from Soldier, Idaho, as the type for 
his species. By doing this Banks repudiated Neumann’s placing the species 
as a synonym of reticulatus. The name venustus cannot date from 1897 
because Neumann did not specifically differentiate this species from his reticu- 
latus, but confused it with his material. Banks, by describing this species in 
1908, gave it a standing in nomenclature as a distinct species. In July, 10908, 
Stiles, after studying part of the Marx material exclusive of Banks’ type of 
D. venustus, briefly described specimens from Montana under the name 
D. andersont. Subsequently, Aug. t910—(Taxonomic Value of the Micro- 
scopic Structure of the Stigmal Plates in the Tick Genus, Dermacentor, Bull. 
No. 62, Hygienic Laboratory), Stiles applied the name D. venustus to the 
Texas material which was contained in the Marx collection, and designated 
this as the type of the species. He stated that the New Mexico material could 
not be positively identified and that the Idaho specimen was not sufficient to 
base a determination upon. In this publication he fully described certain 
Montana material under the name D. andersoni. 

On Oct. 29, 1910, in the JAMA, Stiles reiterates Banks’ statement that Neu- 
mann was incorrect in placing D. veniustus, Marx’s manuscript, as a synonym 
of D. reticulatus but claimed that venustus should date from Neumann, 1897. 
In the last paragraph of this statement he says ‘‘ Were the premise correct 
that Marx’s specimens from Texas and New Mexico are identical with the 
specimens from Montana, D. venustus would of necessity be the correct name 
for the Kocky Mountain spotted fever tick, but this premise is erroneous and 
the name venustus must be applied to the species containing the original speci- 
mens designated under this name.” We must take exception to the last por- 
tion of this sentence, as a part of the material labeled D. venustus by Marx 
(specimens from Soldier, Idaho), is identical with the form found in Mon- 
tana and called D. andersoni by Stiles. One of these males from Soldier, 
Idaho, was designated as type of D. venustus by Banks. A careful comparison 
of this type specimen with Stiles’ type of D. andersoni shows the two species 
to be identical and there is no question that this is the form which conveys 
Rocky Mountain spotted fever. Hence D. andersoni is a synonym of D. venus- 
tus, and if Stiles is correct in his belief that the specimens from “ Texas on 
sheep” are specifically different from D. venustus of Montana, this species 
requires another name. 


Stiles submits the following statement to the Commission : 


1. IN Summary, I submit to the Commission the following points: 
a. Under the International Rules, the name D. venustus dates from 
Marx in Neumann, 1897a, 365. (Art. 25; Opinion of Halicampus grayi 
1856, ruled upon in Opinion No. 53.) 


SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


b. It would require, under the By-Laws, a two-thirds vote of the Com- 
mission to reverse Opinion 53 in the case of D. venustus. 

c. As the orginal publication of D. venustus 1897 mentioned only two 
localities (New Mexico and Texas), only these two localities and no 
other come into consideration as type locality. (Not covered by the Inter- 
national Rules but in harmony with Zoological practice.) 

d. The only original specimens of Marx’s D. venustus mentioned by 
Neumann in 1897 have been found and identified, and only these come into 
consideration as type specimens. (Not covered by International Rules, 
but in harmony with Zoological practice.) 

e. Marx No. 122, from Texas, host Ovis aries, is the first and the only 
originally published specimen publicly or privately designated as type 
specimen and this must remain type specimen. (Not covered by the Inter- 
national Rules, but in harmony with Zoological practice.) 

f. D. venustus n. sp. Banks, 1908, is antedated by D. venustus 1897, hence 
is a homonym, hence is to be suppressed. (Art. 35.) 

g. It is generally admitted (by Banks, Bishopp, Stiles, etc.) that 
D. venustus n.sp. Banks, 1908, is specifically identical with D. andersoni 
Stiles, (1905) 1908, but evidence is not lacking that it also contains Marx’s 
specimens 120 from New Mexico and 122 from sheep in Texas. The only 
specimen of D. venustus 1908 known to have the label of “type” in Banks’ 
handwriting is in the U. S. National Museum (Marx No. 10) and al- 
though Banks specifically states that his type belongs in the collection of 
the Bureau of Entomology, the Museum specimens can be taken as Banks’ 
type until evidence of error is presented ; this specimen seems to be specifi- 
cally identical with D. andersoni [but as it is a single specimen, it has not 
been mounted]. Accordingly, D. venustus Banks, 1908, (nec Marx, 1897) 
is synonymous with D. andersoni Stiles (1905) 1908. 

h. Under the International Rules D. andersoni is the earliest available 
name for the Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever Tick, hence (Art. 25, 35) 
it is the valid name. 

i. As a matter of propriety, I will refrain from utilizing my Commis- 
sioner’s right of vote on this case, since it involves a name proposed by 
myself, but I obligate myself to accept the decision of the Commission 
as determined by the By-Laws. 

j. The following documents are submitted to the reviewing Commis- 
sioner (Stejneger) either in original or in copy, in connection with this case. 

BANKS, 1908.—Revision of the Ixodoidea < Tech. Series, No. 15, Bu- 

reau of Entomology. 
1910.—The Scientific Name of the Spotted Fever Tick << JAMA, 
v. 55 (18), 1574-1575. 
? 1908.—Undated letter, Banks to Stiles regarding type specimen 
of D. venustus. 
NEUMANN, 1897a.—Revision de la famille des Ixodidés. (2e mémoire) 
< Mém. Soc. Zool. France, Par., v. 10 (3-4), pp. 
324-420. 
Stites, 1905f. —A Zoological Investigation, etc.,< Bull. 20, Hyg. Lab. 
1907. —[Transcript of Minutes, Ent. Soc. Wash., Jan. 10, 1907, 
pp. 10-11, giving Secretary’s abstract of Stiles’ paper 
on stigmal plates of the genus Dermacentor.] 





NO. 2 OPINIONS 78 TO 81 5 


1908m.—The common tick (Dermacentor andersoni) of the Bit- 
ter Root valley < Pub. Health Rep., U. S. Pub. Health 
& Mar.-Hosp. Serv., Wash., v. 23 (27), p. 949. 

1908. —Copy of letter, Stiles to Banks, June to. 

1909. —Copy of letter, Stiles to Banks, Mar. 10. 

1909. —Copy of letter, Stiles to Banks, Oct. 23. 

1910. —The taxonomic value of the microscopic structure of 
the stigmal plates in the tick genus Dermacentor 
< Buil. 62, Hyg. Lab. 

1I91l. —Letter, Stiles to Banks, Feb. 20. 

2. The first actual publication of the name Dermacentor venustus occurs in 
Neumann (1897a, 365) who examined specimens of ticks from the Marx col- 
lection, and determined them as Dermacentor reticulatus. His original reads 
as follows: 

“D’Ameérique, j’en ai 2 femelles originaires du Mont Diablo, en Cali- 
fornie (Coll. de l’Acad. des sciences de Californie). La Collection du 
Départ. of Agriculture de Washington et celle de la Smithsonian Insti- 
tution en contiennent plusieurs males et femelles recueillis aussi en Cali- 
fornie, sur le Daim, et étiquetés par G. Marx D. occidentalis. D’autres 
proviennent du Texas et du Nouveau-Mexique et sont étiquetés D. venustius. 
Je rapporte aussi a la méme espéce 9 males et 1 femelle, jeunes, a patine 
blanche encore peu marquée, a coloration générale brun foncé, provenant 
de Las Paz (?) et appartenant au Muséum de Berlin.” 

3. Accordingly, D. venustus was first published as a synonym of D. reticu- 
latus and the original publication clearly cites Texas [Marx 122] and New 
Mexico {Marx 120] as the first published, hence type localities, unless it can 
be shown that Marx designated some other specimens from some other 
locality as type specimens. 

4. The first point which arises is whether or not the manuscript or label 
name D. venustus received nomenclatorial status in this publication by Neu- 
mann. The answer to this question is found in three opinions already issued 
by the Commission, namely, Opinions Nos. 1, 4, and 53. 

5. Status of a Manuscript Name published in Synonymy.—Article 25 of the 
Code reads: 

“The valid name of a genus or species can be only that name under 
which it was first designated,,.on the condition: 

(a) That this name was published and accompanied by an indica- 
tion, or a definition, or a description; and 

(b) That the author has applied the principles of binary nomen- 
clature.” 

6. As Neumann (1897a) is both binary and binomial, the decision reverts 
to “(a).” This point has been discussed in several opinions, thus: 

7. Opinion 1 states: “The word indication in Art. 25a is to be construed 
as follows: (A) with regard to specific names, an indication is (1) a biblio- 
graphic reference, or (2) a published figure (illustration), or (3) a definite 
citation of an earlier name for which a new name is proposed.” 

8. Opinion 4 states: “Manuscript names acquire standing in nomenclature 
when printed in connection with the provisions of Art. 25, and the question 
as to their validity is not influenced by the fact whether such names are 
accepted or rejected by the author responsible for their publication.” 


6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


g. Opinion 53 covers a case identical with the one at issue, namely the 
status of “ Halicampus grayi Kp. British Museum,” published as synonym 


of “ Halicampus conspicillatus,’ corresponding exactly to Dermacentor venus- - 


tus, Collection Marx, U. S. Nat. Mus., published as synonym of D. reticulatus. 
In Opinion 53, written by Stejneger and Stiles, concurred in by 9 Commis- 
sioners, dissented from by 2 Commissioners, Halicampus grayi 1856 was 
recognized under Art. 25 and Opinion 4 as published and hence as available 
and was given precedence over H'. koilomatodon (about 1865). 

10. According to the By-Laws of the Commission, an Opinion cannot be 
reversed by less than a two-thirds vote. Opinion 53 has never before come 
up for reversal and unless a two-thirds vote now obtains against Opinion 53, 
D. venustus must be accepted as available from the date of 1897. 

11. As D. venustus Marx in Neumann, 1897, is under Opinion 53 clearly to 
be accepted as a published and available name, and not as a nomen nudum, 
it remains to enquire into its validity. Two possibilities present themselves, 
namely, 

a. Is D. venustus a synonym of D. reticulatus, as assumed by Neumann? 
If Neumann’s view is sustained, the name D. venustus is clearly not valid 
for D. reticulatus unless it be shown that no earlier name for this species 
is available. But even then, as a synonym of D. reticulatus it would pre- 
clude its (venustus) later use for any other species. 

b. Is D. venustus Marx in Neumann distinct from D. reticulatus? In 
other words, should D. reticulatus as defined by Neumann be sub-divided? 
All authors now agree that it should be, and that certain American (Marx) 
specimens of D. reticulatus (D. venustus) represent a distinct species. 

12. Under this latter premise it is necessary to determine if possible the 
type specimen and the type locality of D. venustus Marx in Neumann. 

13. Obviously, the type locality can be only the originally published locality 
and the type specimens can be only the originally published specimens. Fortu- 
nately, Neumann has given definite information as to the locality, namely, the 
United States of North America and he specifically cites two States, namely, 
Texas and New Mexico. Fortunately, it is possible to identify the original 
specimens also, on basis of the following data: 

14. When Neumann returned the Marx material to the U. S. National 
Museum I borrowed the specimens. The gxact date when these came into 
my hands does not appear to be recorded in my notes. There were three bottles 
which contained the name D. venustus on labels, namely, Marx No. 120, one 
male, from New Mexico; No. 121, one male from Soldier, Idaho, host, Moun- 
tain Goat; and No. 122, 3 males, 1 female, from Texas, host, Ovis aries. [See 
below, under Stiles, 1910.] It seems obvious that Nos. 120 and 122 represent 
the Marx material, and the only specimens of Marx’s D. venustus mentioned 
by Neumann, 1897a, hence, only these two are available as type material. 
Later Stiles (1910, 44-46) definitely published Marx No. 122 as the type 
specimen. This is the first (and so far as I know, the only) publication of the 
Museum number of the type. 

15. From copies of correspondence in my files it is clear that I returned 
Marx 122 to the U. S. National Museum accompanied by a letter dated March 
19, 1909; and that I returned Marx 120 and 121 to the U. S: National Museum 
accompanied by a letter dated February 20, Iort. 


ee 


NO. 2 OPINIONS 78 TO 81 7 


16. My letter files also show that in answer to a letter from me dated Oct. 
23, 1900, asking where the types of D. parumapertus marginatus and D. nigro- 
lineatus were deposited, Mr. Banks replied (in an undated letter) that the type 
of D. p. marginatus was in his private collection, “the type of Derm. venustus 
in Bur[eau] Entom[ology] Coll[ection],” that of D. nigrolineatus in the Mus. 
Comp. Zool., Harvard, “cotypes or paratypes of D. mitens in Marx Coll., 
U.S. N. Mus.” and of “D. parumapertus and D. occidentalis, also Marx coll., 
at least paratypes.” It will be observed that this statement (namely, that the 
type of D. venustus is in the collection of the Bureau of Entomology [no men- 
tion of Marx collection] ) is in harmony with Mr. Banks’ statement of April 20, 
1920. The Marx collection has at no time been the property of the Bureau of 
Entomology. 

17. On Dec. 6, 1920, in the presence of Prof. H. E. Ewing, of the Bureau 
of Entomology, I examined three bottles of ticks at the U. S. National Museum, 
as follows: Marx 121 and 122 (see supra). Also a bottle containing the 
label “No. 10. Dermacentor venustus Marx Idaho Coll. Marx.” This bottle 
also contains a paper with the word “type” written in a handwriting identi- 
fied by Professor Ewing as that of Banks. The Marx label is in a different 
handwriting from that of Marx 121 and 122. This Marx to is not Marx 120. 

18. Here is, accordingly, a bottle attributed to the Marx Collection which I 
had never seen prior to Dec. 6, 1920. It contains no label written either by 
Marx, by Neumann, or by E. A. Schwartz (who went over the Marx collec- 
tion after Marx’s death). Schwartz identifies the Marx label as probably 
written by C. V. Piper. That this specimen is not available as type specimen 
of D. venustus Marx in Neumann follows from the fact that Neumann (1897a) 
did not refer to any specimens from Idaho. 

19. The fact that Banks twice states that the type of D. venustus is in the 
Bureau of Entomology Collection while the specimen with the label “ No. to, 
Coll. Marx,” contains a slip of paper bearing the word “type” in Banks’ hand- 
writing is not, therefore, of special importance so far as the date 1897 is con- 
cerned, but comes into consideration in connection with the date 1908. 

20. Banks (1908, 46-47, 55, pl. 8, figs. 4, 5, 7) described Dermacentor venustus 
n.sp. Banks. In addition to the specific description, which is clearly influenced 
chiefly by material from the Northwest, Banks states: 

“Specimens come from various places in the West; Olympia, Yakima, 
Klikitat Valley, and Grand Coulee, Wash.; Fort Collins and Boulder, 
Colo.; Pecos and Las Cruces, N. Mex.; Bozeman, Mont.; Bridger Basin, 
Utah; Soldier, Idaho, and Texas (on sheep). 

“This species is quite common in the Northwest. It has been included in 
D. occidentalis, by Neumann, but was separated out by Doctor Marx in 
manuscript under the name I have adopted. It is larger than D. occi- 
dentalis, with more red and less white in the coloring, and differs in many 
minor points of structure, as size of porose areas, size of hind coxae in 
male, etc. This is the species supposed to be concerned in the transmis- 
sion of spotted fever in Montana.” 

21. It will be noticed that Banks cites specimens from “ Pecos and Las 
Cruces, N. M.” and “Texas (on sheep)” and that he says it was separated 
out from D. occidentalis “by Doctor Marx in manuscript under the name I 
have adopted.” Banks does not cite the museum number of the type specimen. 


8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


22. The status of D. venustus n. sp. 1908 and its type specimen must be 
determined. Theoretically, three possibilities are present, namely: 

a. D. venustus n.sp. Banks, 1908, might be identical with D. venustus 
Marx in Neumann, 1897; or 

b. D. venustus n.sp. Banks, 1908, might represent a new species; or 

c. D. venustus n. sp. Banks, 1908, might be D. venustus 1897 plus another 
species. 

23. Is D. venustus n. sp. Banks, 1908, identical with D. venustus Marx in 
Neumann, 1897? Banks distinctly states that he adopts the name from Marx’s 
manuscript. Neither Bishopp nor I have been able to find this manuscript, 
so possibly reference is made to the labels in the bottles. Banks quotes among 
the localities, “Las Cruces, New Mexico,” “Soldier, Idaho,” and “ Texas 
(on sheep).” These three localities are in harmony with the Marx specimens 
Nos. 120, 121, 122. The presumption therefore would seem to be that Banks 
examined these three specimens. I am in a position to state that these three 
specimens, with drawings of No. 122, and with my manuscript giving No. 122 
as type of D. venustus were placed on a table in my laboratory in front of 
Mr. Banks for examination prior to the publication of his paper. Bishopp 
(see supra) states that Banks studied “all of the Marx material” and this 
would seem to include Marx 120, 121, and 122. Banks, however, (1910, JAMA, 
1574-1575) states that he never studied Marx 120 and 122 (namely the speci- 
mens published by me in 1910 as D. venustus). If Banks’ D. venustus is iden- 
tical with Marx’s D. venustus as published in Neumann, the species should 
be attributed to Marx. 

24. Is D. venustus n.sp. Banks, 1908, distinct from D. venustus Marx in 
Neumann, 1897? If this represents the correct status of facts, then D. venustus 
Banks, 1908, is a homonym of D. venustus 1897 and therefore cannot be used 
as a valid name. 

25. Does D. venustus n. sp. Banks, 1908, include D. venustus Marx in Neu- 
mann, 1897, plus some other species? If this be the status of affairs, it 1s clear 
that such portion of D. venustus of Banks, 1908, as agrees with D. venustus 
1897 should be allocated to D. venustus 1897 and that the remaining portion 
should be known under some other name. 

26. It would appear, therefore, that the crux of the problem lies in estab- 
lishing the type specimen of D. venustus of Banks, 1908. The evidence at my 
disposal, bearing on this point, is as follows: 

27. Banks has twice stated in letters that the type of his D. venustus of 
1908 is in the Collection of the Bureau of Entomolgy. He has also stated in 
a letter that “type label was placed on a certain vial of D. venustus at time 
of publication.” Bishopp states that Banks “used one of the males from 
Soldier, Idaho, as type for his species.” In the presence of Professor Ewing, 
Dec. 6, 1920, I established the fact that there is in the National Museum a 
specimen marked “ Coll. Marx, Dermacentor venustus Marx Idaho,” and that 
the bottle contains a label, identified by Ewing as in Banks’ handwriting, read- 
ing “type.” 

28. The Marx specimen from “ Soldier, Idaho,” No. 121, was in my labora- 
tory at the time Banks visited me in order to examine Marx’s specimens, and 
it is not the specimen containing Banks’ label “type.” Banks (1910, JAMA, 
1574-1575) states that his D. venustus 1908 is identical with my D. andersoni, 
and this view is in harmony with the specimen which bears Banks’ label 





NO. 2 OPINIONS 78 TO 81 fe) 


“type.” How and whether this specimen changed from the Bureau of Ento- 
mology Collection to the Marx Collection is as yet not clear. 

29. Judged from the specimen containing Banks’ label “ type,’ D. venustus 
n. sp. Banks, 1908, falls, therefore, as a homonym of D. venustus Marx in 
Neumann, 1897, and it is either a synonym or it is not a synonym. To deter- 
mine this latter point, it is necessary to examine Stiles (1910) who reexamined 
the specimens (Marx 120 and 121 from New Mexico and Texas) of D. venu- 
stus Marx published by Neumann, 1897. Specimen 122 (mentioned by Neu- 
mann) and selected by Stiles as type is specifically distinct from the specimen 
which bears Banks’ label as representing the type of D. venustus Banks, 1908. 
As this was the first selection of any specimen of the Marx-Neumann (1897) 
material as type, and as the Idaho material was not available as type, since 
it was not mentioned by Neumann (although Marx 121 from a mountain goat, 
at Soldier, Idaho, was examined by him), a comparison of the type speci- 
mens in question, namely, Marx 120 (type of D. venustws Marx in Neumann, 
1897, as published by Stiles, 1910) with Marx No. 10 (type of D. venustus 
Banks, 1908, according to the label in Banks’ handwriting, but not entirely in 
harmony with his correspondence) appears therefore to settle the question 
that nomenclatorially D. venustus 1908 is not absolutely (from point of view 
of type specimen) synonymous with D. venustus 1897. Accordingly, the name 
D. venustus n.sp. Banks, 1908, drops as a homonym. 

30. It next becomes necessary to enquire into the valid name for the species 
represented by D. venustus n. sp. Banks, 1908 (nec Marx in Neumann, 1897) 
incriminated as vector of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever. 

31. The systematic history of this tick is indeed complicated, owing to the 
difficulties connected with specific determinations. It has been studied by 
Marx, Neumann, Banks, and Stiles, all four of whom were fairly familiar 
with the group. These specialists confused the species with: D. occidentalis, 
D. venustus, D. electus, and D. reticulatus. These various species were not 
all clearly and definitely defined from each other until 1910, although all four 
of the authors just mentioned, and other authors also, had at various times 
determined a number of specimens correctly. 

32. Anderson collected in the Bitter Root Valley some ticks which Wilson 
& Chowning and Anderson had incriminated as the vector of the Rocky 
Mountain Spotted Fever. Stiles (in Anderson, 1903, 21) made a provisional 
determination of this material as Dermacentor reticulatus. 

33. Stiles (1904 1(m), 1649 (363)) obtained from the Bitter Root Valley 
a considerable amount of tick material which agreed with the tick which Wil- 
son & Chowning (1902, 1903, 1904) and Anderson (1903) had incriminated 
as the vector of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever. Stiles states: 

“6. The tick most common in the valley is a dermacentor which is 
very closely allied to D. reticulatus. The data now at my disposal indi- 
cates, however, that it represents a distinct species.” 

“7. These ticks are common on horses, cattle, and dogs, and more or 
less frequent on man, but there is nothing to indicate that a hibernating 
animal is necessary for their development; in fact, indications (seasonal 
distribution) are not entirely lacking that the spermophile forms a more 
or less accidental host for this species.” 

34. Later, Stiles (1905f, 7, 22, 24) in discussing his negative results as to 
the piroplasmic nature of the Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, uses the new 


Io : SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


name “Dermacentor andersoni” in referring to this tick which Wilson & 
Chowning (1902, 1903, 1904) and Anderson (1903) had incriminated as vector 
of the supposed Piroplasma hominis. Zoological characters are not cited and 
so far as this article is concerned, the name Dermacentor andersoni rests 
solely upon the geographic distribution of the tick and the earlier claims that 
this arachnoid is the vector of the disease. 

35. Later, Stiles (1907, 10-12) presented to the Entomological Society of 
Washington drawings of D. andersoni, D. venustus, D. occidentalis, etc., 
demonstrating the differential characters on which the species in question are 
recognizable, but these names were not published in the Secretary’s minutes 
of the meeting. Mr. Banks was present and discussed the paper. 

36. After the meeting, Mr. Banks asked to examine some of the specimens 
and was invited to do so. For this purpose he visited my laboratory (exact 
date unknown, but between Jan. 10, 1907 and June 6, 1908). I placed before 
him the manuscript, drawings, and specimens, and a miscroscope; he used 
his own hand lens. Among the specimens placed before him were “ Marx:120, 
121, 122.’ Mr. Banks examined some of the drawings and specimens; as he 
was received as a guest he was free to do this. 

37. Upon the publication of D. venustus n. sp. Banks, 1908, Stiles, in the hope 
of forestalling further confusion, published (1908m, 949) a short note giving 
some of the more important differential characters. 

38. Later, Stiles (1910, 36-46) published his delayed manuscript, describ- 
ing and figuring in detail D. andersoni Stiles (type No. 9467, from Wood- 
man, Mont.) (giving D. venustus pars of Banks, 1908, as synonym) and 
D. venustus Marx, 1897, in Neumann, 1897 (type Marx 122 from Texas) giv- 
ing D. venustus pars of Banks, 1908, as synonym). 


Discussion.—The present case, to my mind, is much less com- 
plicated than the argument submitted would indicate. 

The facts appear to be as follows: 

1. In 1897 G. Neumann (Mem. Soc. Zool. France, vol. 10, pp. 
324-420) published a “ Révision de la famille des Ixodidés,” in which 
under the specific heading of Dermacentor reticulatus (Fabricius), 
up to that time known only from the Old World, he says on p. 365: 
“La Collection du Départ. of Agriculture de Washington et celle de 
la Smithsonian Institution en [7. e., D. reticulatus|] contiennent 


plusieurs males et femelles receuilles aussi en Californie, sur le Daim, © 


et étiquetés par G. Marx D. occidentalis. D’autres proviennent de 
Texas et du Noveau-Mexique et sont étiquetés D. venustus.”’ There 
is no further reference to these specimens, and this is the first pub- 
lished reference to Dermacentor venustus. Although there is no de- 
scription, the name is not a nomem nudum, since according to Opinion 
53 it has a nomenclatorial status that cannot be ignored. The case 
is absolutely comparable, though not quite identical, with that of 
Halicampus grayi, quoted only in synonymy as being in the British 
Museum, but not described, regarding which Opinion 53 says that 
“there can be no question but that Halicampus grayi has been pub- 





| 
| 


ena 


a 


NO. 2 OPINIONS 78 TO 81 II 


lished in connection with a bibliographic reference, and in connection 
with a description, and on this account the name must be considered 
as dating from 1856.” As Opinion 53 is in force and consequently is 
part of the Code, it is clear that Dermacentor venustus as a published 
and available specific name dates from 1897. But it is also unidenti- 
fiable from the published data then available. Dr. Neumann himself 
apparently thought it the same as reticulatus, but he gives no data 
by which it can be determined from his publication whether he was 
right or wrong. The reference to certain localities can have no bearing, 
nor is there any indication that he referred to actual type specimens. 
Marx’s type specimens may have been examined, or they may not, 
as far as contemporaneous published evidence is concerned. 

The next appearance of the name in any publication is in 1908 
when Banks (A Revision of the Ixodoidea, or Ticks, of the United 
States, June 6, 1908, p. 46, pl. 8, figs. 4, 5, 7) described Dermacentor 
venustus aS a new species without reference to Marx’s manuscript 
name of 1897 in Neumann. He mentions neither a type specimen, nor 
does he give any single type locality. He says: ‘“ Specimens come from 
various places in the West: Olympia, Yakima, Klikitat Valley, and 
Grand Coulee, Wash.; Fort Collins and Boulder, Colo.; Pecos and 
Las Cruces, N. Mex.; Bozeman, Mont.; Bridger Basin, Utah; Soldier, 
Idaho ; and Texas (on sheep).” On page 48, under D. occidentalis, 
he says: “ Neumann first considered D. occidentalis and D. venustus 
of Marx as identical with the European D. reticulatus. .... When 
he described D. occidentalis, Neumann included with it D. venustus 
of the Marx manuscript. However, I have restricted the name to the 
form to which Marx applied it.” This last sentence is not strictly 
correct. When Neumann described D. reticulatus occidentalis, which 
was done in January, 1905 (Arch. Parasitol., Paris, vol. 9, no. 2, 
p. 235), he did not mention D. venustus at all; he only recognized 
several ¢ and 9 collected on “le Daim,” California, and labeled 
D. occidentalis by G. Marx, as a distinguishable subspecies [variété] 
of the species D. reticulatus, in other words, in 1905 he recognized 
his species D. reticulatus of 1897, as a complex one including still 
the material which Marx had labeled D. venustus, and with the right 
of the first reviser he separated out and fixed the name of D. occi- 
dentalis. But he did nothing to D. venustus; he still kept it in the 
synonymy of D. reticulatus. Banks, however, in 1908, accepted Neu- 
mann’s action as first reviser, as far as D. occidentalis is concerned 
(recognizing it however as full species), but went a step further and 
exercised his right as next reviser to segregate Marx’s D. venustus 
out of the complex D. reticulatus of Neumann 1897. In the 


12 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL 78 


D. venustus thus restricted, Banks included specimens from Wash- 
ington, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Utah, Idaho, and Texas. 
No type locality, nor type is mentioned, as stated before. In the 
absence of definite type designation the presumption in 1908 is, there- 
fore, that the D. venustus of 1908 and the one of 1897 are identical. 

Later in the same year Dr. Stiles (Weekly Pub. Health Rep., 
vol. 23, pt. 2, nos. 27 to 52, July 3, 1908m, p. 949) briefly indicated 
that Banks’ D. venustus of 1908 was still a specific complex, separating 
out from it, and for the first time diagnosing, the specimens from 
Montana as Dermacentor andersont |D. anderson Stiles 1905, nomen 
nudum]. Incidentally he also mentioned D. venustus as an allied 
species from Texas, but gave no characters and mentioned no type. 

Up to that time there had been no published mention of type speci- 
men or of the names having been tied down to any particular speci- 
mens, except in the case of D. occidentalis. 

No further revision and subdivision of the complex took place until 
August, 1910, when Stiles’ paper entitled “the taxonomic value of 
the microscopic structure of the stigmal plates in the tick genus 
Dermacentor’? was published (Hyg. Lab. U. S. Publ. Health Mar. 
Hosp. Serv.). In this he undertook a final revision of the specific 
complex D. reticulatus as presented by Neumann in 1897. In this 
revision he described fully and figured D. venustus designating ‘“ Marx 
122 in U.S. National Museum. Host, Sheep (Ovts aries )in Texas ” 
as the type (holotype). As the final reviser of a complex group em- 
bracing specimens from a large number of localities, some of which 
had been variously named, he exercised his right to select the type 
for such components as had not already been so designated. 

The case of Dermacentor andersoni seems to be simpler still. 

Specimens of this form do not appear to have been known by 
Neumann in 1897, at least he does not mention Montana specimens as 
being among the material examined by him, and D. andersoni is con- 
sequently not involved in the revision of Neumann’s D. reticulatus 
(of 1897). The name appears before 1908 only as a nomen nudum 
and consequently does not concern us until that year when it is 
briefly characterized by Stiles (Weekly Publ. Health Rep., vol. 23, 
pt. 2, Nos. 27 to 52, July 3, 1908m, p. 949) and said to be based on 
specimens from Montana. Specimens from the latter State were 
first mentioned by Banks in June, 1908, and by him included in his 
complex D. venustus. In 1910, a definite type specimen of D. andersoni 
was published by Stiles, wz..U.S. Po. & MHS. 9467. - this 
specimen is from Woodman, Montana; host, Equus caballus. 





, 
. 


i ii tell 


NO. 2 OPINIONS 78 TO 81 13 


The subsequent discussion between Banks and Stiles as to what 
specimens in the museums were actually designated as types of 
D. venustus, but which had never been so designated in any publica- 
tion, seems to me irrelevant. 

The published record of the two forms and their gradual fixation 
nomenclatorially by the various revisers may be briefly summarized 
as follows: 

D. vENUSTUS 
1897. Component of the complex D. reticulatus Neumann (no type designation). 
1908. Component of the complex D. venustus Banks (no type designation). 


1910. Segregated from D. venustus Banks 1908 and type designated by Stiles: 
Marx No. 122. 


D. ANDERSONI 
1908. June. Montana specimens (not named) included in the complex 
D. venustus Banks (no type designation). 
1910. August. Type designated by Stiles. 

I am, therefore, of the opinion that the answer to Dr. W. Dwight 
Pierce’s communication should be: 

1. That the Commission as such is incompetent to express an 
Opinion as to the name of the spotted fever tick. It can only take 
cognizance of the systematic names which have been applied to the 
various forms mentioned by him, and decide as to their applicability 
under the Code as disclosed by the records before the Commission. 

2. On basis of these records it appears that, assuming the taxonomic 
distinctness of these forms, 

a. The name Dermacentor venustus Marx in Neumann 1897 
belongs to a form with the specimen Marx No. 122, from Texas 
as holotype. 

b. The name Dermacentor andersoni Stiles 1908 belongs to a 
form with specimen U.S. P. H. & M.H.S. 9467, from Wood- 
man, Montana, as the holotype. 

Opinion written by Stejneger. 

Opinion concurred in by 11 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, 
Bather, Loennberg, Handlirsch, Hoyle, D. S. Jordan, K. Jordan, 
Monticelli, Skinner, and Stejneger. 

Opinion dissented from by two Commissioners: Horvath and 
Kolbe. 

Horvath states: ‘‘ Je n’accepte que la seconde partie de la proposi- 
tion, celle qui se rapporte au nom de Dermacentor andersoni Stiles, 
1908. En ce qui concerne la premicre partie de la proposition, l’auteur 
de Dermacentor venustus est, a4 mon avis, incontestablement Banks 
qui en a publié en 1908 la premicre description. D. venustus Marx in 


14 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Neumann 1897 est un nomen nudum, puisque ni Marx, ni Neumann 
n’en ont donné une description. Le principe statué par l’Opinion 4 et 
appliqué dans l’Opinion 53 est inadmissible et doit étre rejeté comme 
tout-a-fait contraire aux lois fondamentales de la nomenclature 
zoologique.” 

Monticelli states: “I cannot agree with the first point of the 
opinion of Stejneger from which, according to my judgment, a 
contradiction results. 

“As the Commission must, on the basis of the conclusions of the 
relator, determine the nomenclature of the two species of Derma- 
centor (as results from the second point of the same conclusions 
by the wide discussion of the case presented for the examination of 
the Commission), I think that the Commission cannot declare its 
incompetence to express an opinion on Dr. Pierce’s question. I think, 
therefore, that the Commission could well give its opinion on the 
specific name of the species of Dermacentor which transmits ‘ spotted 
fever’ to man. 

“Because, having fixed the two specific names, Dermacentor 
venustus Marx, 1897, and Dermacentor andersoni Stiles, 1908, and 
having identified with these names all the other names that different 
authors have attributed to the ticks of ‘spotted fever,’ it seems to 
me that—from the elimination of the names by which the relator 
has arrived at the second point of his conclusions—the specific name 
of the Dermacentor that gives spotted fever logically should result. 

“Tt only remains to identify which of the two species of Derma- 
centor is the intermediate host of the parasite of ‘spotted fever.’ 

“2. I agree, however, to the second point of the conclusions of 
the relator.” 

Not voting, two Commissioners: Hartert, Stiles. 





NO. 


bo 


OPINIONS 78 TO 81 15 


OPINION 79 


CASE OF LAMARCK’s (180I1A) SYSTEME DES ANIMAUX 
SANS VERTEBRES 


SUMMARY.—“ Rigidly construed,” Lamarck’s (1801a) Systéme des Animaux 
sans Vertébres is not to be accepted as designation of type species. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Dr. J. Chester Bradley has submitted to 
the Commission the following question : 


Is the Systéme des Animaux sans Vertébres of Lamarck, 1801* to be 
accepted as designating types of genera? 

In the work cited, Lamarck, after the description of each genus, cites at 
least one species, frequently two, which would at first sight appear to be mere . 
examples and not construable as designated types. 

But on p. viii he states: “ Pour faire connoitre d’une maniére certaine les 
genres dont je donne ici les caractéres, j’ai cité sous chacun d’eux une espéce 
connue, ou tres-rarement plusieurs, et j’y ai joint quelques synonymes que je 
puis certifier; cela sufft pour me faire entendre.” 

This work was not accepted by Rohwer? nor by Viereck® in their careful 
attempts to fix the types of the genera of sawflies and of ichneumonwasps. 
It has been accepted in a paper by Morice & Durrant,* but these authors accept 
several works that clearly do not fix generic types in the sense of the Code. 

Discussion.—In another Opinion (No. 81, on Cimex) the Com- 
mission has not interpreted this book by Lamarck as fixing types, 
and no new evidence is now presented which appears to warrant the 
reversal of this interpretation. In the view of the Commission, 
Lamarck cites a “ known species, or very rarely several” as examples, 
in order to illustrate the genera, but rigidly construed, he does not 


fix the types. 
*Lamarck, Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoin de Monet chevalier de. Systéme des 
animaux sans vertebres, ou Tableau général des classes, des ordres et des 


genérés de ces animaux .... Par J. B. Lamarck .... Paris, Deterville, An 
ix—I8olI, vili, 452, p. fold. tables, 20 cm. 

* Rohwer, Sievert Allen .... II. The genotypes of the sawflies and wood- 
wasps, or the superfamily Tenthredinoidea. By S. A. Rohwer .... Wash- 


ington, 1916, < Technical series, No. 20, part H., U. S. Department of Agricul- 
ture, Bureau of Entomology. 

* Viereck, Henry Lorenz... . Type species of the genera of ichneumon- 
flies. By Henry L. Viereck . . . . 1914,< Smithsonian Institution, U. S. 
National Museum, Bulletin 83. ‘ 

“Morice, F. D. & John Hartley Durrant. The authorship and first publica- 
tion of the “Jurinean” genera of Hymenoptera: Being a reprint of a long 
lost work by Panzer, with a translation into English, and introduction, and 
bibliographical and critical notes < Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 1914: 339-436. 


16 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLS 


This interpretation is supported by an examination of Lamarck’s 
(1816b) Hist. Nat. des Anim. sans Vertéb., in which he does not 
even cite certain species mentioned in 1801. For instance, in 1801, 
p. 293, he cites only P. rufipes under Pentatoma, if he had intended 
this as type designation, he would, presumably, have cited this species 
under Pentatoma in 1816b, 492-494, but he does not do so; he stated 
that Pentatoma contains a large number of species, of which he 
cites three : acuminata, baccarum and prasina. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, Bather, 
Handlirsch, Hartert, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, 
Loennberg, Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, and Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by two Commissioners: Horvath, Daut- 
zenberg. 

Not voting, two Commissioners: Roule, Simon. 

Dautzenberg says: “A l’époque ot. Lamarck a publié son Systeme 
des Animaux sans Vertebres, on n’attachait pas a la fixation des types 
des genres l’importance ni la précision que nous lui attribuons 
aujourd’hui. En désignant pour chaque genre une espéce connue, ac- 
compagnée de reférences, ‘ afin de se faire bien entendre,’ Lamarck a 
certainement voulu désigner ce que nous appelons aujourd’hui des 
types, aussi ne verrais-je aucun inconvenient en ce qui concerne les 
mollusques, 2 adopter pour types les especes citées connue exemples 
dans le Systéme des An. sans vert., car il ne s’agit, en somme que de 
deux mots différents, mais qui ont exactement la méme signification.” 





NO. OPINIONS 78 TO 81 17 


bo 


OPINION 80 
SUSPENSION OF RULES IN THE CASE OF HOLOTHURIA AND PHYSALIA 


SUMMARY.—The Echinoderm genus Holothuria Linn., 1767, restr. Bruguiére, 
1791, type H. tremula 1767 —H. tubulosa 1790, and the Siphonophorae genus 
Physalia Lamarck, 1801, type P. pelagica 1801 = Holothuria physalis 1758, are 
hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. 

STATEMENT OF CASE.—Pages 49 to 57 of Opinion 76 are accepted as 
statement of Case. 

Discussion.—Pages 49 to 57 of Opinion 76 are accepted as 
Discussion. 

The fact that the suspension of the rules was under consideration 
for these names was duly published as follows: Science, 1917, v. 45, 
Feb. 2, p. 113; Nature, Lond., v. 98, 1916, Sept. 21, p. 49; Monit. 
Zool. tal 1917, ve.20 (il) 4 p..183. 

The Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt the follow- 
ing action: 

(1) Suspend the rules in the case of the generic names Holothuria 
and Physalia; 

(2) Permanently reject Holothuria Linnaeus, 1758, type H. 
physalis 1758; 

(3) Validate Physalia Lamarck, 1801, type P. pelagica 1801 (syn. 
H. physalis 1758) ; 

(4) Accept Holothuria as dating from Linn., 1767a (type H. 
tremula 1767=H. tubulosa 1790) as restricted by Bruguiere, 1791, 
and despite the publication of Holothuria Linn., 1758 (rejected) ; 

(5) This suspension is not to be construed as invalidating any 
specific name. 

The grounds for said suspension are: 

(a) Inthe judgment of the Commission, the strict application 
of the Regles to the names Holothuria and Physalia “ will clearly 
result in greater confusion than uniformity ” ; 

(b) The cases involve a transfer of generic names, almost 
universally accepted in the sense given above since 1791 (for 
Holothuria), and since 1801 (for Physalia), to genera in other 
groups in connection with which they have been used during 
more than 100 years by only a very few authors. Important 
supergeneric names, also of long standing, are involved. 

(6) The Commission places on the Official List of Generic Names 
the name Holothuria Linn., 1767, type H. tremula 1767=H. tubulosa 


18 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


1790, as the correct name for a genus of Sea Cucumbers, and the 
generic name Physalia Lamarck, 1801, type P. pelagica 1801 = Holo- 
thuria physalia 1758, as the correct generic name for the Portuguese 
Man-of-War. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 12 Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, 
Handlirsch, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, 
Loennberg, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioners. 

Not voting, three Commissioners : Dautzenberg, Hartert, Monticelli. 


NO. 2 OPINIONS 78 TO 8I 19 


OPINION 81 


THE GENOTYPE OF CIMEX, ACANTHIA, CLINOCORIS, AND 
KKLINOPHILOS 


SUMMARY,—On basis of the premises before the Commission, the common 
bedbug of Europe, Cimex lectularius, is the genotype for Cimex 1758, Acanthia 
1775, Clinocoris 1829, and Klinophilos 1899 (Clinophilus 1903), and its proper 
technical designation under the Rules is Cimex lectularius. Cimex Linn., 1758, 
type C. lectularius is hereby placed in the Official List of generic names. 


PRESENTATION OF CASE.—Dr. W. Dwight Pierce has submitted 
the following case for opinion. (Additions by the Secretary are 
marked *): 


The scientific name of the bedbug has proved one of the most confusing 
problems in entomological nomenclature. It appears to the writer that the 
proper name should be Clinocoris lectularius Linnaeus, as accepted by Girault, 
Kirkaldy, and Reuter, and used in some medical text books (Castellani and 
Chalmers). 

In American literature it also passes under the generic names Cimex and 
Acanthia, 

In 1758 Linnaeus (Syst. Nat., roth edit., p. 441) described Cimex with 85 
species, of which lectularius was first and stockerus second. The genus was 
described as having four wings, but lectularius is wingless and does not agree 
with the generic description. No type is designated by Linnaeus. 

Dr. C. W. Stiles in 1907 (Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash., vol. 8, p. 67, 68) considers 
that lectularius must be considered type because of Linnaeus’ rule to select the 
commonest and most medicinal species as type of his genera. Such a method 
of selection, it seems to me, would be valid if there were no definite designa- 
tions of type preceding Dr. Stiles’ paper. The evidence presented below is 
against the acceptance of Dr. Stiles’ designation. 

In 1775, Fabricius (Syst. Ent. p. 606) discusses Cimex, and includes 167 
species with “ stockerus” Linnaeus as the first species, and he describes (p. 603) 
Acanthia with 15 species, of which (Cimex) lectularius Linnaeus (= Acanthia 
lectularia) is first. This action by Fabricius definitely removes lectularius 
from Cimex. (* No type was designated.—C. W. S.) 

In 1780, Oliver (Encycl. Meth., vol. 4, Intr., p. 25) reversed Fabricius’ divi- 
sion of genera, and called Acanthia Fabricius “Cimex” (Punaise), and 
called Cimex Fabricius “ Pentatoma,’ From this date begins the confusion. 

In 1797, Latreille ((*1796a,) Précis des Caractéres, p. 85) in discussing 
Acanthia says, “Je ne rapporte a ce genre que les espéces de Fab. que I|’on 
trouve ordinairement aux bords des eaux. Les autres appartiennent aux Gen- 
res Coré et Lygé.” (* Latreille (1796a, 83) cites “Cimex Linn. .... Punaise 
....8. Pentatoma, Oliv.” No type is selected, no species mentioned.—C. W. S.) 

Kirkaldy in 1899 (The Entomologist, vol. 32, p. 219) considers Latreille’s 
remarks to definitely limit the genus Acanthia to littoralis and its allies. 
Accepting this interpretation of Latreille’s action, we must concede that lectu- 
laria was definitely eliminated from Acanthia in 17097. 


20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLIW/5 


(* Cuvier, 1798a, 574-575 (Tableau élémentaire de l’histoire naturelle des 
animaux) says: 

Les punaises (Cimex) 

On les divise en 
a. Acanthies .... (Mentions only “C. lectularius.”) 
b. Punaises proprement dites. (Cimex Fabr.) (4 sp., lineatus, 

haemorrhoidalis, oleraceus, ornatus.) 

c. Corées. (Coreus Fabr.). (Mentions only marginatus.) 
d. Lygées. (Lygaeus Fabr.). (2 sp.) 
e. Gerres. (Gerris Fabr.) 
f. Hydrometre. (Hydrométra Latr.) (Mentions only stagnorum.) 
g. Reduves. (Reduvius.) (Mentions only personatus.) 

(* The question arises whether the expression, “ Punaises proprement dites 
(Cimex Fabr.),’’ when 4 species are cited, constitutes a restriction that affects 
the type designation. The Secretary is inclined to the view that even if this 
point were conceded, the type is not designated thereby either for Acanthia 
or for Cimex, and that while it might have been better under the circumstances 
to follow this division subsequent to 1798, we cannot alter the fact that this 
course was not uniformly followed. We must take the facts as they exist, 
not as they should or might have been.) 

For the next few years we find the species in ever shifting positions, none 
of which can really be accepted if we view elimination as a legitimate pro- 
cess in limiting a generic concept. 

Schellenburg in 1800 (Cimicum Helvetiae Genus, pp. 5, 6, 15, 16) in a mono- 
graph of the Cimicidae has both genera Cimex and Acanthia, and places 
lectularia in Acanthia (* but does not designate types). 

(* Lamarck, 1801a (Syst. anim. sans vertébres, pp. 293-204) adopts Cimex 
Linn. as genus, which he divides as follows: 

“Corps ovale ou arrondi. (Acanth. Fab.) 

“Cimex lectularius. Lin. Acanthia lectu—(p. 294) laria. Fab. Ent. 4, p. 67. 
Geoff. ins. I, p. 434, n. 1. La punaise des lits. 

“Cet insecte incommode et puant, n’a ni ailes ni élytres par un avortement 
qui se perpétue, et propage dans un état qui réssemble a celui de larve. Néan- 
moins sa classe et son genre sont determinés par la considération de ses 
congénéres. 

“Corps oblong, un peu étroit. (Ligaei, Fab.) 

“ Cimex equestris. Lin. Ligaeus equestris. Fab. ent. 4, p. 147. Climex. Geoff. 
ins, 1, Pp. 442, No. 14:)) 

(* On page viii, Lamarck says: “ Pour faire connoitre d’une manniére cer- 
taine les genres dont je donne ici les caractéres, j’ai cité sous chacun d’eux 
une espéce connue, ou trés rarement plusiers, et j’y ai joint quelques synonymes 
que je puis certifier; cela suffit pour me faire entendre.” ) 

(* Thus while Lamarck clearly intended C. lectularius to be considered as a 
Cimex, he recognized two subgroups (Acanthia and Lygaeus), placing C. lectu- 
larius in the subgroup Acanthia. If his remarks on page viii (see above) are 
to be interpreted as definite designation of genotypes for the genera in which 
only one species is cited, it would appear that lectularius is here designated 
type of Acanthia. Since, however, he did not name one of his subgroups as 
Cimex s. str., it would appear that either Acanthia or Lygaeus should be 
interpreted as the typical subgroup, hence as Cimesx s. str., hence also that 


NO. 2 OPINIONS 78 TO 81 21 


either lectularius or equestris should be type of Cimex. As this point is not 
definite from the context, it must be concluded that “rigidly construed” 
(Art. 30g), Lamarck did not here designate type for Cime.x.) 

(* Linnaeus (1802, Turton Ed., Syst. Nat., pp. 608-702) divides Cimex into 
six groups (cf. subgenera) as follows: 1. Cimex (Acanthia) which includes 
lectularius, littoralis and many other species; 2. Cimex (Cimex) which in- 
cludes bidens and many other species; and four other groups which do not 
influence the present problem, namely, 3. Cimex (Lygaeus) ; 4. Cimex (Ger- 
ris); 5. Cimex (Miris); and 6. Cimex (Reduvius). Types are not cited for 
these groups, but is is to be noticed that both lectularius and littoralis are 
placed in Acanthia, and it is clear that a typical subgenus Cimex has been 
created, but as no type is designated this seems to leave the subject in the 
same status as did “ Punaises proprement dites. (Cimex Fabr.)” of Cuvier, 
1798a. So far as Acanthia is concerned, the status of affairs has reverted to 
that which existed in 1775.) 

Fabricius in 1803 (Syst. Rhyng., p. 112-113, 155-179) treats both Acanthia 
and Cimex and limits Acanthia to lectularia and hemiptera. Kirkaldy (1899, 
The Entomologist, vol. 32, p. 220) is very positive in asserting that Fabricius 
in this work designates bidens L. as type of Cimex. It is true that bidens is 
the first Linnaean species included in the Fabrician concept of Cimex, but I 
cannot find a positive designation.’ 

Latreille in 1804 (Hist. Nat. Crust. et Ins. p. 237, 240-244, 254-255) definitely 
states? on p. 237 that he reversed the Fabrician decisions and makes lectularius 
type of “ punaise,’ which is his common name for Cimex, and on page 254- 
255 limits Cimex to lectularius. He places in Acanthia, zosterae, littoralis and 
four other species. 

(* Dumeril, 1806, 264 (Zool. analytique) appears definitely to designate 
lectularius as type (by monotypy) of Cimexr. The passage in question reads: 

“2, Les punaises (cimer, Linne; acanthia Fab.) ont le corps ovale, trés 
applati, cing articles aux antennes, et le corcelet en croissant recevant la téte. 
On n’en a encore observé qu’une seule espéce, qui attaque pendant la nuit 
Vhomme et certains oiseaux, en particulier les hirondelles.) 

(* Dumeril (1806, 262) adopts Acanthia for species, not mentioned by name, 
which live on banks of bodies of water, on bark of trees, and on fruits.) 

(* Latreille, 1807 (Gen. Crust. et insect), p. 136 mentions only C. lectularius 
under Cimex, and cites (p. 142) A. maculata, Lygaeus saltatorius, Salda lit- 
toralis, S. zosterae, and S. striata, under Acanthia.) 

Latreille in 1810a (Consid. Gen., p. 433) in the list which is considered as 
designating types by an Opinion (* No. 11) of the International Commission, 
designates lectularia as type of Acanthia, thus contradicting his positive state- 

*(* Fabricius, 1803, 112, cites lectularia (chef de file) and hemiptera as 
belonging to Acanthia, and p. 155-170 he cites 123 species (without type desig- 
nation (See Art. 30r) for Cimex) ; (bidens is chef de file).—C. W. S.) 

* P. 237: “Il nous a paru plus convenable de restituer 4 cet insecte le nom 
sous lequel il est généralement connu, et de le faire servir de type au genre 
punaise (*Cimex, p. 254), dont il est jusqu’a présent la seule espéce bien 
connue.” 


22 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


ments of 1797, 1804, and even on previous pages in the same book. He refers 
Cimex to Pentatoma.* 

(*On p. 434 he cites “Lygaeus saltatorius” as type of “ Acanthie” 
(Acanthia).) 

(* Lamarck 1816b, 501-503, clearly designates lectularius as type for Cimex, 
for though he cites two species (lectularius and hirundinis) the second 
(hirundinis) is not an original (1758) species, and he says “ Par les nom- 
breuses distinctions etablies, le genre: punaise (Cimex) se trouve presque 
(cf. hirundinis) reduit a la seule espéce (lectularius) qu’on eut souhaite ne 
jamais connaitre.’ Under Acanthia he includes maculata, littoralis, and - 
zosterae, but without type designation.) 

Fallen in 1818 (Cimices Sveciae, p. 17, 27) has 18 species in Cimex and limits 
Acanthia to lectularia. (* Not a type designation—C. W.S.) 

In 1825 Saint Fageau and Serville (Encycl. Meth., vol. 10, p. 250-251) follow 
Olivier in placing lectularius as the only (* positive) species in Cime.x. 

Fallen in 1829 (Hem. Svec., p. 140, 142) limits Acanthia to lectularia but . 
suggests Clinocoris* as a better generic name. This is the first time that 
lectularia has had a bona-fide location since 1797. (* Fallen includes bidens 
and 17 other species in Cimex—C. W.S.) 

(* The publication by Fallen, 1829, brings up a very complicated combina- 
tion of nomenclatorial possibilities.) 

(*(a). It is clear that Clinocoris (aj kAivna couch;6 képis, a bug) 1829 is 
Acanthia (axavOias, a prickly thing) renamed, hence (Art. 3of, rule) “the 
type of either, when established, becomes ipso facto type of the other.’’) 

(*(b). The first definite type designation for Acanthia was Lygaeus salta- 
torius (by Latreille, r810a, 434), but as this was not an original species for 
Acanthia it is not available as type.) 

1904: A. lectularia is apparently accepted as type by Kirkaldy, 1904, 
Nature, 465; 1905; and by Reuter, 1908, Ent. mon. Mag. 27. 

1912: Cimex lectularius is definitely designated as type by Castellani 
& Chalmers, 1913, 637 and 1920, 763. 

1917: C. lectularius is definitely accepted as type by Van Duzee, 1917, 
285. 

(* The only species (See dissenting view by Stejneger in Discussion) which 
can possibly come into theoretical consideration as genotype both of Acanthia 
and of Clinocoris are: A. lectularia and A. clavicornis; all theoretical argu- 
ments are in favor of accepting lectularia which is the only one of the two 
species: which has ever been definitely cited by name in connection with 
Clinocoris and which is the first and only species ever designated as type of 
Clinocoris. Accordingly, unless it can be shown that clavicornis has been 
designated type of Acanthia, lectularia remains type of Clinocoris and there- 
fore type of Acanthia also.) 

* (* Latreille, 1810a, p. 257 says: “G. 324, Punaise, Cimex.” and on p. 433 
he says: “ Punaise, dAcanthia lectularia.” Thus lectularius is designated type 
of Cimex.) 

* Acanthia renamed. “Nomen generis ab axavOa (spina) desumsit Cel. 
Fabricius, verisimiliter propter punctionem insecti. Forsitan convenientius 
judicabitur nomen Clinocoris (Germanice Bettwanze). 1. A. lectularia. 


NO. 2 OPINIONS 78 TO 81 23 


(* Curtis, 1835 (Brit. Ent. vol. 12, pl. 548, 569) says: 548: “Acanthia.... 
Type of the Genus, Cimesx littoralis Linn.” and 569: “Cimex .... Type of 
the Genus, Cimex lectularius Linn.” ) 

(* Westwood, 1840, vol. 2, Synopsis, p. 119, designates saltatoria Linn. as type 
of Acanthia ...., and p. 120 C. lectularius as type of Cimex; but saltatoria 
is not cited as an original species by Fabricius in 1775.) 

In 1843 Amyot & Serville (Hist. Nat. Ins. Hemiptéres, p. 310-313) give a 
good discussion of the case in hand, stating that Fabricius by dividing Cimex 
into three genera definitely removed lectularius to Acanthia. They attribute 
all our present difficulties to Olivier’s (1789) arbitrary reversal of the Fabri- 
cian genera calling Acanthia Fabr. “ Cimex,” and Cimex L., Fabr. “ Pentatoma.” 
They further recite Latreille’s reversals of opinion in 1797 and later, first 
accepting Acanthia for lectularia and later Cimex. They treat Acanthia with 
only lectularia. 

(* Reuter (Wien. Ent. Zeitung, 1882, 301-306) discusses the case in detail 
and accepts lectularius as type of Cimex,; on basis of Fabricius (1803) he 
accepts littoralis as type of Acanthia. He argues that Fabricius (1803) defi- 
nitely designated types by his methcd of comparison (chef de file).) 

In 1809, Kirkaldy (The Entomologist, p. 219) overlooking Clinocoris, and 
considering the bedbug without a generic name, proposed Klinophilos (* tod. 
Cimex lectularius, and he took bidens Linn., as type of Cimex—cC. W. S.). 

(* Blanford (1903, Nature, 200) changes Klinophilos to Clinophilus and 
adopts lectularius as type of Cimex on basis of the Linnaean rules. Kirkaldy 
(1904, Nature, 465), replying to Blanford, claims that (on basis of elimination) 
lectularius is excluded from being taken as type of Cimex and that Latreille 
(1707) restricted Acanthia to “ littoralis and its congeners”; Kirkaldy accepts 
Clinocoris, instead of his Klinophilos, for the bedbug. Blanford (1904, Nature, 
464), replies that the generic name was taken from a species in the Linnaean 
genus that was called Cimesx in classical Latin. The only species that can be 
clearly identified with the Latin name appears to be C. lectularius L. and he 
accepts this as type of Cimex on basis of the Linnaean rules.) 

In 1905, Kirkaldy (The Entomologist, vol. 38, p. 76, 78) withdrew Klino- 
philos, accepting Clinocoris, and gave further proof on pp. 304-306. 

In 1908, Reuter (Ent. mon. Mag., vol. 44, p. 27) reviewed the situation and 
agreed? with Kirkaldy (1899) that littoralis should be type of Acanthia, bidens 
type of Cimex, and lectularius of Clinocoris. 

Kirkaldy, 1909 (Cat. Hemiptera (Heteroptera) vol. I, p. xxvi-xxvili), again 
insists that Fabricius 1803 named bidens as type of Cimex, but says that 
Latreille 1804 named (zosterae Latr.) —saltatorius L. as the type of Acanthia. 

(* Apstein, 1915a, 158, (Nomina Conservanda) designates lectularius as 
type of Cimex.) 

(* Van Duzee (1917, Catalog. Hemipt., 285) accepts lectularius as type of 
Cimex on basis of Lamarck (1801a, 293), Latreille (1810a, 257, 433), Laport 
(1832, 51) and Westwood (1840), all of whom he quotes as “ names lectularius 
type.” He also accepts lectularia as type of Acanthia on basis of Fabr. (1803, 

*Reuter quotes (in part erroneously) Kirkaldy, 1899, p. 219, as follows: 
“T therefore see no alternative to adopting the name Acanthia for littoralis 
(*& c.” in original of K. but omitted by R.—C.W.S.) as Kirkaldy has 
already done in his monograph of the palaearctic species.” 


24 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


112). The Secretary does not accept Laport (1832, 51) and Fabr. (1803, 112) 
as definite type designation. ) 

As I see the synonymy at present, it may be summarized as follows: 

1. Cimex Linnaeus 1758, type bidens L. selected according to Kirkaldy 
by Fabricius 1803, but at least by Kirkaldy 1899. The genus is limited by 
removal of Acanthia Fabricius 1775 thus taking away lectularius. Ac- 
cepted as above by Reuter 1908. 

2. Acanthia Fabricius 1775, type littoralis L. selected by Latreille 1804 
according to Reuter 1908. The genus was limited to exclude lectularia by 
Latreille 1797. 

3. Clinocoris Fallen 18290—monotype lectularia L. The genus is offered 
as substitute for Acanthia Fabricius 1803, Fallen 1829 (not Fabricius 1775, 
Latreille 1797). Accepted by Kirkaldy 1899, 1905, 1909; Reuter 10908; 
Girault, 1905. 

SYNONYMS: 

(a) Acanthia Schellenberg, 1800; Fabricius, 1803, type by elimination lectu- 
larius; Latreille, type by designation, 1810; Fallen monotype, 1818; Fallen 
monotype, 1829; Douglass and Scott 1865. 

(b) Cimex Latreille, 1804, type by designation lectularius; Stiles, 1907 
(designation) ; E. Saunders, 1892; Lethierry & Severin, 1896. 

(c) Klinophilos Kirkaldy, 1899, type by original designation lectularius. 


Discussion.—The case submitted is one more to be added to the 
many cases of generic confusion due to the fact that so many authors 
have been content with division of genera, but have ignored the prin- 
ciple of genotype fixation. If authors had followed the Linnzan 
code in this case, and had, in accordance with said code,’ adopted 
C. lectularius as type of Cimex the confusion would have been auto- 
matically avoided. 

The premises have been set forth by Dr. Pierce in the “ Presenta- 
tion of Case.” In company with Dr. Pierce the Secretary has verified 
the references, but his interpretation of certain of the citations differs 
somewhat from that presented by Dr. Pierce. This case of nomen- 
clatures has been discussed in more or less detail by a considerable 
number of authors and their views seem to be hopelessly at variance. 
No opinion the Commission adopts can count upon universal ap- 
proval since so many complications, giving rise to different views, 
come into consideration. One principle develops in the case (see 
Clinocoris) which has never been before the Commission heretofore, 
which seems to be an entirely new principle, and yet one which seems 
to be clearly covered by the rules. 

In addition to the literature cited by Dr. Pierce, the Secretary has 
consulted a number of other references which are briefly summarized 


* The particular Linnean rule in question reads “Si genus receptum, secun- 
dum jus naturae et artis, in plura dirimi debet, tum nomen antea commune 
manebit vulgatissime et officinali plante.” 


NO. 2 OPINIONS 78 TO 8I 25 


or cited herewith. As the Secretary sees the points at issue, they 
involve four generic names (Cimex, Acanthia, Clinocoris, and Klino- 
philos) and may be summarized as follows: 
1. Cimex Linn., 1758a: Two species (lectularius and bidens) 
have been selected as type. 
A. In the original publication the type is not determined 
under Art. 30— 
(a) Original designation, (b) Use of typicus or 
typus, (c) Monotypy, or (d) Absolute tautonymy. 
B. Neither species thus far designated as type (lectularius 
and bideus) is excluded under Art. 30(e). 
C. No complication arises under Art. 30(f), renaming 
of genus. 
D. In case of doubt, Recommendations (h to t), the fol- 
lowing points are to be held in mind under Art. 30: 

1758: C. lectularius (Cimex of Pliney) is on the 
preferred list under (h) the Linnaean rule, (n) best de- 
scribed, best figured, best known, and easily obtained 
species, (p) parasitic on man, (q) probably actually 
studied by author, (t) page precedence. 

1775: C. lectularius would not be on the preferred 
list because (k) elimination by: Fabricius, 1775, 693; 
1787, 280 ; 1794, 67 ; 1803, 112.—Cuvier, 1798.—Schel- 
lenberg, 1800, 15——Turton, 1802.—Fallen, 1818, 109; 
1829.—Burmeister, 1837a, 596—Amyot & Serville, 
1843.—Douglass & Scott, 1868, 278.—Claus, 1885a.— 
Leunis, 1886a.—R. Blanchard, 1890a, 473.—Railliet, 
1895a, 820—Kirkaldy, 1899; 1904, 465; 1905.— 
Reuter, 1908, 27—And many others. 

A. bidens seems to be on the preferred list under 
(k) because it remained in Cimex after A. lectu- 
laria was eliminated (1775) and (0) De Candolle’s 
rule. 

Apparently neither A. lectularia nor A. bidens 
has preference, one over the other, under (i) Vir- 
tual tautonymy, (j) non-exotic, (1) sexually ma- 
ture vs. larvae, (m) name communis, etc., (s) 
Linnaeus did not declare in favor of the first species 
rule. 

1803: C. bidens is on the preferred list under (r) as 
chef de file by Fabricius, 1803, 155. 


26 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


E. “ Rigidly construed’ (Art. 30g) the following refer- 
ences are to be interpreted as citation of illustrative or char- 
acteristic species rather than as selection of type, or at best 
are debatable. 

1764: C.lectularius by: Brunnich, 1764, 82 (see also 
p. 56).—Olivier, 1789, 25—Lamarck, 1801a, 293.— 
Latreille, 1804, 254; 1807, 136.—St. Fagean & Serville, 
1825.—DeLaporte, 1832, 51.—Stal, 1873, 104.—And 
many others. 

1834: C. juniperinus by: Burmeister, 1837a, 597. 

F. “ Rigidly construed” (Art. 30g) the following refer- 
ences are undebatably definite designations of genotypes: 

1804: C. lectularius by: Latreille, 1804, 254; 1810a, 
257, 433.—Dumeril, 1806, 264.——lLamarck, 1816b, 
502.—Curtis, 1835, 569.—Westwood, 1840, 120.—Pas- 
coe, 1868, 94.—Reuter, 1882, 301—Blanford, 1903, 
200; 1904, 464.—Stiles, 1907, 67.—Apstein, I915a, 
158.—Van Duzee, 1917, 285. 

1899: C. bidens by: Kirkaldy, 1899, 220; 1909, 
xxvili (on basis of Fabr. 1803), 4—Reuter 1908. 

G. ConcLusion.—C. lectularius was the first original 
species definitely designated (1804) as type of Cimex in 
harmony with Art. 30 and this designation is not subject 
to change. 

2. Acanthia Fabr. 1775: Four species (A. saltatoria, A. litto- 
ralis, A. zosterae, and A. lectularia) have been selected as type. 

A. In the original publication, the type is not determined 
under Art, 2014. be-ee id)? 

B. Under Art. 30 (e, a), A. saltatoria is definitely ex- 
cluded as type since it was not an original species. A. 
sosterae is not cited as an original species, and it was further 
considered later to be a synonym of saltatoria; accordingly, 
A. gzosterae is definitely excluded as type. 

C. A distinct complication arises because of the renaming 
of genus. Acanthia was renamed Clinocoris in 1829, hence 
under Art. 30(f) the type of either, when established, be- 
comes, ipso facto, type of the other. As a natural result, 
no species which is excluded as type of one of these genera 
can come into consideration as type of the other, and as 
A. littoralis was definitely excluded from Clinocoris by the 
founder of the generic name, this species cannot (under 
Art. 30e, a) become type of Clinocoris, hence (Art. 30f), 





tbo 


OPINIONS 78 TO 81 27 


dating with 1829 it is definitely excluded from consideration 
in selecting (Art. 30g) the type of Acanthia. 

D. In case of doubt, the following points are to be held 
in mind: 

1775: A. lectularia is on the preferred list under (h) 
the Linnean rule, (n) best known, etc., (p) parasitic 
on man, (q) probably actually studied by author, and 
(t) page precedence. 

1789: A. lectularia would not be on the preferred 
list because of (k) elimination by: Olivier, 1789, 25.— 
Dumeril, 1806, 262.—Latreille, 1804; 1807; 18toa. 
Lamarck, 1816b, 502.—St. Fagean & Serville, 1825.— 
DeLaporte, 1832, 51.—Curtis, 1835.—Westwood, 
1840.—Stal, 1873, 104.—Reuter, 1882, 301 ; 1908, 27.— 
Kirkaldy, 1899; 1904; 1905.—Blanford, 1903 ; 1904.— 
Stiles, 1907.—Apstein, 1917a—Van Duzee, 1917.— 
And many others. 

1803: A. littoralis would not be on the preferred list 
because of (k) elimination by: Fabricius, 1803, 115, 
to Salda.—Fallen, 18209, 71. 

A. littoralis seems to be on the preferred list 
under (0) DeCandolle’s rule. 

Apparently neither A. lectularia nor A, littoralis 
is on the preferred list under (i) Virtual tau- 
tonymy, (1) Sexually mature ws. larvae, (m) name 
communis, etc., (s) Fabricius did not declare in 
favor of the first species rule. 

1803: A. lectularia is on the preferred list under (1) 
as chef de file by Fabricius, 1803, 112. 

E. ‘“ Rigidly construed ”’ (Art. 30g) the following refer- 
ences, are to be interpreted as citation of illustrative or 
characteristic species rather than selection of type, or at 
best are debatable. 

1796: A. littoralis group by: Latreille, 1796a, 185; 
1804, 240.—Dumeril, 1806—Lamarck, 1816b, 508.— 
Kirkaldy, 1904, 465. 

1798: A. lectularia by: Cuvier, 1798a, 574.---Schel- 
lenberg, 1800, 15—Lamarck, 1801a, 293.—Fallen, 
1818, 17, 27; ? 1829, 140.—Burmeister, 1837a, 596.— 
Amyot & Serville, 1843, 310.—Douglass & Scott, 1868, 
278.—Claus, 1885a.—Leunis, 1886a—Knauer, 1887a, 

















SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


339.—R. Blanchard, 1890a, 473.—Railliet, 18952, 
820.—And many others. 

1832: A. saltatoria by: DeLaporte, 1832, 52. 

I’. “ Rigidly construed” (Art. 30g) the following refer- 
ences are undebatably definite designations of genotypes. 

1810: A. saltatoria by: Latreille, 1810a, 259, 434.— 
Westwood, 1840, 119.—Kirkaldy, 1909, xxviii (on basis 
of Latreille, 1804). 

1835: A. littoralis by: Curtis, 1835, 548.—Reuter, 
1882, 301 (on basis of Fabr. 1803) ; 1908, 26-27 (on 
basis of Kirkaldy, 1899, 218). 

1868: A. zosterae by: Pascoe, 1868, 94-95 (on basis 
of Latr. 1802; 1804).—Kirkaldy, 1909, xxviii (so. 
saltatorius) (on basis of Latreille, 1804) (chef de file 
of Salda by Fabr., 1803, 113). 

1917: A. lectularia by: Van Duzee, 1917, 285 (on 
basis of Fabr., 1803, 112). 

G. ConcLusion: A. lectularia is type because it is the 
first and only original species (Art. 30e, a) of both Acanthia 
and Clinocoris which has been validly designated as type 
either of Acanthia or of Clinocoris (see C). 

3. Clinocoris (Petersson ? in) Fallen, 1829, Acanthia Fabricius 
renamed hence both must have the same genotype. C. lectularius 
is the only species which has been definitely designated as type. 

A. On basis of the original publication it is possibly a 
debatable point but very doubtful whether the type is deter- 
mined under (a) original designation, but it is not deter- 
mined under (b, c, or d). 

B. C. lectularius is available under Art. 30 (e). 

C. Complications arise under Art. 30 (f£) as Clinocoris is 
Acanthia renamed. The following 7 of the 15 original species 
of Acanthia are definitely excluded (under 30 e, a) from 
consideration as type of Clinocoris, since Fallen (1829) 
himself definitely excluded them by not including them in 
Clinocoris and by classifying them elsewhere: A. betulae (in 
Aradus), A. cardui (in Tingis), A. corticalis (in Aradus), 
A. laevis (in Aradus), A. littoralis (in Salda), A. pyri (in 
Tingis), A. rugosa (in Aradus). 

C’. Commissioner Stejneger holds another view as fol- 
lows: The fact brought out by Dr. Stiles in the rewritten 
Opinion, that Fallen, in 1829, simultaneously with suggest- 
ing Clinocoris as a substitute for Acanthia, placed A. littoralis 


NO. 


OPINIONS 78 TO 81 29 


of Fabricius in another genus, Salda, can have no influence 
on Curtis’s right, in 1835, to designate it as type of Acanthia 
Fabricius. 

As shown above, Acanthia, up to the year 1829, had not 
any valid type designation, and was consequently still poly- 
typic. Fallen in this year did not alter the status of Acanthia; 
he only mentioned Jectularia as one of the species, but gave 
a substitute name, Clinocoris. Consequently, Clinocoris at 
that date was equally polytypic, and must share the fate of 
Acanthia. It now appears that on the same occasion he also 
relegated Acanthia littoralis to another genus, Salda. The 
question then arises: Does this action of Fallen in placing 
A, littoralis in another genus nullify Curtis’ explicit designa- 
tion, in 1835, of littoralis as the type of Acanthia? Is there 
anything in Code Art. 30 which makes this action of Curtis 
invalid? These questions, it seems to me, have already been 
answered in Opinion 62 which specifically provides that 
Article 30 does not even exclude type species of other genera 
from consideration in the subsequent selection of the type 
of a given genus. The fact that Fallen removed littoralis 
to another genus, Salda, consequently does not bar its desig- 
nation by Curtis in 1835, since even if he had made it the 
type of Salda (and so he may have done for all I know) that 
fact would not have invalidated the designation of littoralis 
as type of Acanthia. Fallen, in 1829, did not make a new 
genus Clinocoris, he only suggested a new name for an old 
genus, and this substitute name must ipso facto have the 
same designated type. If littoralis is the type of Salda, Salda 
also becomes a synonym of Acanthia. 

D. In case of doubt, the following points are to be held 
in mind under Recommendations (h to t) of Art. 30: 

1829: C. lectularius is on the preferred list under 
(h, n, p, q, and t). 

1829: C. lectularius (known as xépis by Aristo- 
phanes ; képis dz xAtvys by Discorides), is to be selected 
(“unless such preference is strongly contraindicated 
by other factors”) under (i) Virtual tautonymy : 
4 kXivn, a couch; lectulus, a little bed; 6 kopis, a bug. 

? 1829: Acanthia lectularia by Monotypy, by Fallen, 
1829, 141. This is open to debate. Certain it is that 
this is the species which Fallen had especially in mind. 
A difference of opinion seems, however, inevitable, as 


30 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


theoretical arguments exist on both sides. Hence, 
rigidly construed, this designation or alleged designa- 
tion might perhaps best be tabled. 

1829: C. lectularius is on the preferred list under 
(j) as a non-exotic species, when compared with the 
following 6 of the 8 remaining original species (not 
mentioned above in C) of Acanthia; A. crassipes 
(Dresden) ; A. lunata (India) ; A. rhombea (Africa) ; 
A. serrata (hab. unknown) ; A. serratulae (England) ; 
A. umbraculata (Hafniae). 

1829: Acanthia clavicornis, the one remaining origi- 
nal species of Acanthia which comes into theoretical 
competition has nothing (under Art. 30) to give it 
preference over A. lectularia. 

E. “ Rigidly construed” (Art. 30g), it is not clear that 
Girault (1905, 61, 117) designates the genotype. 

F. “ Rigidly construed ” (Art. 30g), the following refer- 
ences are undebatably definite designations of genotype. 

1904: C. lectularius by: Kirkaldy, 1904, 465; 
1905.—Reuter, 1908, 27.,—Castellani & Chalmers, 1913, 
637; 1920, 763.—Van Duzee, 1917, 285. 

G. ConcLusion.—C. lectularius was the first and only 
original species of Clinocoris definitely designated as type 
of Clinocoris in harmony with Art. 30 and this designation 
is not subject to change. 

4. Klinophilos Kirkaldy, 1899=Clinophilus Blanford, 1903. 
1899: lectularius type by monotypy (Art. 30c). 

As soon as one departs from the foregoing citations to which the 
Rules can be strictly applied one encounters citations that are subject 
to interpretations that are diametrically opposed to each other and 
one becomes involved in the uncertainties of elimination, retransfer, 
and reeliminations, and in the vagaries involved in the citation of a 
single species as example. 

Accordingly, the Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt 
as its Opinion the following: 

1. On basis of the premises before the Commission, the com- 
mon bed-bug of Europe, Cimex lectularius Linn., 1758, is geno- 
type for Cimex Linn., 1758, Acanthia Fabr., 1775, Clinocoris 
Petersson or Fallen, 1829, and Klinophilos Kirkaldy, 1899 
(= Clinophilus Blanford, 1903), and its proper designation 
under the rules is Cimex lectularius. 


bY. 


NO. OPINIONS 78 TO 81 31 


bo 


2. Cimex Linn., 1758, type C. lectularius, is hereby placed in 
the Official List of generic names. 

Commissioner Stejneger presents the following dissenting con- 
clusion which is presented for vote as alternative Opinion: 

I am therefore constrained to maintain that my original conclu- 
sions were correct as formulated in my first vote to the effect: 

(1) That lectularius Linn., 1758, is the type of Cimex; (2) that 
Klinophilus of Kirkaldy, 1899, is a synonym of Cimex with the same 
type; (3) that Acanthia of Fabricius, 1775, has for type Cimex 
littoralis; (4) that Clinocoris of Fallen, 1829, is a synonym of 
Acanthia with the same type. 

Opinion ’* written by Stiles. 

Opinion as written by Stiles concurred in by ten Commissioners: 
Allen, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Kolbe 
Monticelli, Skinner, Stiles. 

Opinion as modified by Stejneger (but accepting Jectularius as 
type of Cimex) concurred in by one (or two?) Commissioners: 
Stejneger, ?Bather. 

Opinion dissented from by one Commissioner: Jordan (K.). 

Not voting on opinion as now written (see, however, footnote, 
p- 31) five Commissioners: Apstein (accepts Jectularius as type of 
Cimex), R. Blanchard (deceased; prior to death he accepted lectu- 
larius as type of Cimex) Dautzenberg (accepts lectularius as type 
of Cimex), Roule, Simon. 

The essential point is that 14 Commisioners have concurred in 
accepting /ectularius as type of Cimex as against one Commissioner 
who dissents from this view. 

Bather adds: “I do not accept Stiles’ argument, p. 26, C. I am 
doubtful as to the validity of all of Stejneger’s remarks, p. 28, C’. I 
incline to think that this is a case in which one should frankly give 
up argument and decide either on ground of practical convenience 
or by drawing lots. From first to last an amount of time must have 
been wasted on this bed-bug enough to decide the fate of six alleged 
murderers. Is it worth while?” 

Handlirsch adds: “ Wenn Cimesx in dem Sinne ‘ lectularius’ beibe- 
halten wird und Salda fur littoralis etc., so fallt endlich der Name 


’ 


*The Opinion as written in Circular Letter No. 36 was: 

Concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, Bather, Blanchard, 
Dautzenberg, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath (part), Hoyle, Jordan (D.S.), 
Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger (part), Stiles. 

Dissented from (in part) by 2 Commissioners: Horvath, Stejneger. Not 
voting, 4 Commissioners: Jordan (K), Kolbe, Roule, Simon. 


32 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Acanthia, der so viel Confusion verursacht hat, und alle Zweifel sind 
endgiltig beseitigt. Das its ja schliesslich doch die Hauptsache.” 

Hoyle adds: “On reading this re-statement of the case, the follow- 
ing points occur to me: (1) That the action of Linné in placing 
“lectularius’ as first species in ‘ Cimex, taken in conjunction with 
his method of selecting types is almost sufficient to make ‘ lectularius’ 
the type of ‘ Cimex, though perhaps it does not justify the phrase 
‘rigidly construed.’ (2) However this may be,. it seems to me that 
Latreille (1804) definitely makes ‘lectularius’ the type of ‘ Cimex’ 
and this action overrules any preceding subdivisions and eliminations. 
I, therefore, see no reason to reverse my previous opinion.” 

Jordan (D. S.) adds: “I should have taken Stejneger’s view, but 
not insistently as the case is excessively complex.” 

Jordan (K.) adds: “1. Asa matter of principle the original diag- 
nosis of a genus should be considered first guide in determining the 
type species of the genus. If the original author, by the wording of 
his diagnosis, indicates from which kind of species the diagnosis is 
taken, this indication has priority over all subsequent ones. F. g., 
Hubner describes his genus Heraclia (Lepid.) as having ‘ glossy 
green black’ forerings, and places into this genus three species, of 
which two agree with the description, while the third does not. Ob- 
viously, the type of the genus is one of the ‘glossy green black’ 
species. Similarly, Cimex is diagnosed by Linnaeus as having four 
wings ; his conception of a true Cimex, therefore, was a four-winged 
insect. The bed-bug does not conform with this conception., There- 
fore, I cannot accept lectularius as type of Cimex. But something 
might be said in favor of discarding priority (or suspending the 
rules) in this important case.” 

“II. Acanthia Fabr., 1775, was based on a number of species in- 
clusive of the bed-bug. The diagnosis of the genus seems to cover all 
species, being very general (and faulty). In 1794 Fabricius gave a 
fuller diagnosis of Acanthia, stating ‘ elytris coriaceis, planis, apice 
membranaceis longitudine abdominis. . .’, but he, nevertheless, leaves 
lectularius in this Acanthia. Latreille in 1797 limits Acanthia to the 
species found near water. Both Fabricius in 1794 and Latreille in 
1797 place the bed-bug outside the concept of true Acanthia, and I 
submit that from 1794 lectularius had no valid generic name. 

“TIT. In 1803 Fabricius reversed his conception of 1794 and re- 
stricted Acanthia to the bed-bugs. He was not entitled to do so. This 
concept of 1803 and not the Acanthia Fabr., 1775, was renamed 
Clinocoris by Fallen in 1829. I consider Clinocoris to be the first valid 
generic term for lectularius.” 



















SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 


VOLUME 73 NUMBER 3 


OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


OPINIONS 82 TO 90 








MAR 4 


i 


OFFICE LIBRARY 
y 


al 





(PUBLICATION 2830) 


CITY OF WASHINGTON 
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 
DECEMBER 16, 1925 














SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 


VOLUME 73 NUMBER 3 


OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


OPINIONS 82 TO 90 





200220008 





(PUBLICATION 2830) 


CITY OF WASHINGTON 
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 
DECEMBER 16, 1925 


The Lord Galtimore Press 


BALTIMORE, MD., U. S. A. 





OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


OPINIONS 82 TO 90 


OPINION 82 


SUSPENSION OF RULES For Musca LINNAEUS, 1758a, 
Type M. DOMESTICA 


SUMMARY,.—By authority of the power conferred on the Commission by the 
gth International Congress of Zoology to suspend the Regles as applied to any 
given case where in its judgment the strict application of the Regles will 
clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, Article 30 is hereby 
suspended in the case of Musca Linnaeus, 1758, and Musca domestica Linnaeus, 
1758, is hereby designated as type of /usca without prejudice to other cases. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—The Commission has received two separate 
requests bearing upon the genus Musca Linn., 1758, and one of these 
considers also the genus Calliphora Desvoidy, 1830. The more com- 
plete statement of the case is that submitted by W. Dwight Pierce 
and reads as follows (Additions by the Secretary are marked *) : 


Tue Cases oF Musca DOMESTICA LINNAEUS, AND CALLIPHORA 
VOMITORIA LINNAEUS 
OrIGINAL DESCRIPTION OF A/usca 


1. Linnaeus, Carolus, 1758, Systema Naturae, roth edit. 
Genus No. 222 Musca, pp. 589-601, 100 species. Includes No. 52, vomitoria, 
p. 505; No. 54, domestica, p. 506. 


SUBSEQUENT REFERENCES TO Musca 


2. Geoffroy, Et. L., 1762, Histoire abrégée des Insectes. Vol. 2. 
Genus Musca, pp. 483-538. Includes No. 59 (vomitoria), No. 66 
(domestica). 


SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS, VOL. 73, No. 3 


7a. 


10. 


IT. 


12. 


133 


. Dumeril, 1806, 282. 


SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Fabricius, Johann Christian, 1775, Systema Entomologiae. 
Genus No. 173, Musca, pp. 773-787. Includes No. 5, domestica (p. 774), 
No. 13, vomitoria (p. 776). 
DeGeer, Charles, 1776, Mémoires pour servir a l’Histoire des Insectes. 
Genus No. 60, La Mouche, Musca. The genus contains in Famille 2, No. 4, 
vomitoria (pp. 57-60), and No. 10, domestica (pp. 71-78). 
Fabricius, J. C., 1781, Species Insectorum, vol. 2. 
Genus 176, Musca (pp. 435-455). No. 7, domestica; No. 17, vomitoria. 
Fabricius, J. C., 1787, Mantissa Insectorum, vol. 2. 
Genus 182, Musca (pp. 342-353). No. 9, domestica; No. 19, vomitoria. 
Fabricius, J. C., 1794, Entomologiae Systematica. 
Genus 233, Musca (pp. 312-361). No. 11, domestica; No. 25, vomitoria. 
Lamarck, 1801a, 310-311 gives 2 species (1) Antennes a soie plumeuse, 
*Musca domestica L. (2) Antennes a soie nue, p. 311 *Musca grossa 
Linn. Fab. 
Latreille, P. A., 1805 (An. xiii), Histoire Naturelle, Générale et Parti- 
culiére des Crustacés et des Insectes, vol. 14. 
Genus DXXXII°, Mouche. Musca (pp. 380-381). No. 1, vomitoria; 
No. 3, domestica. 
Fabricius, J. C., 1805, Systema Antiliatorum. 
Genus 65, Musca (pp. 283-308). No. 18, domestica; No. 34, vomutoria. 
Genus Musca. “10. Les mouches (musca, Linn.) sont les seules espéces 
qui aient le poil latéral des antennes plumeux comme la mouche 
domestique, et qui s’éloignent d’ailleurs de tous les genres précédens.” 


PeriopD IN WuHicH Type DESIGNATIONS APPEAR 


Latreille, Pierre André, 1810, Considérations Générales sur 1l’Ordre 
Naturel des Animaux. 

Genus 694, Mouche. Musca (p. 400). In “ Table des Genres avec !’indi- 
cation de l’espéce qui leur sert de type,” p. 444 appears, Mouche, 
Musca vomitoria, F. This in accordance with Opinion No. 11 of 
the International Commission is type. [* On the assumption that Musca 
vomitoria F. includes M. vomitoria L—C. W. S.] 

Fallen, Carolus, Jr., 1820, 1823, Monographia Muscidum Sveciae. 

Genus Musca begins on p. 36 (1820). No. 22, vomitoria (p. 47, 1821) ; 
No. 26, domestica (p. 49, 1823). 

Meigen, Johann Wilhelm, 1826, Systematische Beschreibung der bekannte 
europdischen zweifliigeligen Insekten. Theil 5. 

Genus CLVI. Musca (pp. 49-80). No. 21, vomitoria (p. 60); No. 31, 
domestica (pp. 67-69). 

Robineau-Desvoidy, J. B., 1830, Essai sur les Myodaires. On p. 373, “Les 
Muscides, qui ont le Musca domestica et le M. vomitoria (Linn.) pour 
types,” etc. 

Genus XII, Musca, with 13 species (pp. 3094-399). No. 10, domestica 
(p. 398). On p. 433, Calliphora, n. g. including 17 species. “Ce genre 
a pour type le Musca vomitoria (Linn.).” 





NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 90 a 


14. Macquart, J., 1834, Insectes Diptéres du Nord de la France, Athéricéres. 

Genus Mouche, Musca (p. 19). On pp. 19, 20. “Ce genre dans lequel 

Linnée comprenait non seulement l’immense famille des Muscides, mais 

encore les Syrphides, etc... ., est arrivé, par l’effet des divisions... , 

a ne contenir que la Mouche domestique et quelques especes yoisines. 

Cet insecte, a été considéré comme le type de tant d’autres, et dont le 

nom si vulgaire, depuis la plus haute antiquité, a recu des acceptions si 
variées, parait maintenant dégagé de tout ce qui lui est étranger.” 

Genus Calliphora (pp. 23-26) includes as first species, vomitoria. 

15. Westwood, John O., 1840, an introduction to the Modern Classification of 
Insects. Calliphora. Type designated as vomitoria (p. 141, see also 
569). Musca. Type designated as domestica (p. 141, see also 570). 

16. Coquillett, D. W., 1910. The type species of North American genera of 
Diptera. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 37, No. 1719. On page 517, 
“Calliphora Desvoidy, Essai Myod., p. 433, 1830, 17 species. Type, 
Musca erythrocephala Meigen, by original designation (as vomitoria 
Linnaeus ).” 

On p. 571, “Musca Linnaeus, Syst. Nat., 1oth ed., p. 580, 1758, 100 
species. Type, Musca domestica Linnaeus, the fifty-fourth species, by 
designation of Macquart, Ins. Dipt. Nord. France, Athér., 1834, p. 20.” 

17. Townsend, C. H. T., 1915. Correction of the misuse of the generic name 
Musca, with description of two new genera. Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci., 
vol. 5, No. 12, pp. 433-436. 

Musca Linnaeus, type vomitoria F.=L. (designated by Latreille 1810, 
p. 444). 

Calliphora R.-D., 1830, type vomitoria R.-D. nec L. = M. erythrocephala 
Meigen, which is congeneric with vomitoria L. 

Promusca Townsend, n. gen., type by original designation, domestica L. 

Discussion BY Dr. Prerce.—There is no question from above data, if they 
present the entire case, that Musca has for its type vomitoria L., and that 
Townsend was completely in accord with the International Rules and Opinions 
in erecting a new genus for domestica. 

From the standpoint purely of coid-blooded legal procedure there is no other 
way to look at the question. 

On the other hand the Congress of Zoology has left open a method of pro- 
cedure whereby common usage can be made to supersede the strict application 
of the Law of Priority. 

There can be no question, after looking over the above references and the 
thousands of publications on both of these extremely important medicinal 
species, that it would be a great misfortune to the public at large, the entomo- 
logical and the medical professions, to adopt the legally correct combinations 
proposed by Dr. Townsend. Musca domestica has been known from time of 
antiquity, and has never been known otherwise since the establishment of the 
binomial nomenclature in 1758. Very few insects or even animals have such a 
reputation. Only one man (Townsend), whose departure from custom has 
not been accepted, has ventured to upset the stability of this name, for we 
can hardly assume that Latreille expected domestica to be separated from 
Musca when he made his designation of vomitoria, if indeed he intended it as a 
designation in our present sense of the word. Many believe he meant only 
example. 


4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Furthermore the genus Calliphora has found a place in medical and entomo- 
logical literature with vomitoria as its type, and has remained stable for almost 
a century. 

Musca domestica is one of the few insect species known the world around to 
scientists and general public alike. The public at least will never know it 
otherwise. The scientific fraternity will accept with the greatest reluctance the 
chaos-making change. It is therefore that the following request is made of the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 

ACTION REQUESTED.—The signers hereby formally make application of the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to place the combinations 
Musca domestica Linnaeus and Calliphora vomitoria Linnaeus in the list of 
Nomina Conservanda, thus definitely establishing domestica L. as type of 
Musca, and vomutoria L. as the type of Calliphora. Robineau-Desvoidy definitely 
stated that vomitoria Linnaeus was type of Calliphora, although he personally 
studied a closely related species, possibly identical, which he mistook for 
Linnaeus’ species. 

This request is made on the ground of practical utility, universal usage, and 
an unbroken history of consistent usage (with only two exceptions as above 
noted), in the face of a perfectly legal procedure which causes confusion and 
innumerable difficulties. 


Doctor Pierce’s request for suspension of the rules is signed also 
by 22 additional entomologists as follows: L. O. Howard, W. D. 
Hunter, W. Dwight Pierce, F. C. Bishopp, R. H. Hutchison, U. C. 
Loftin, W. E. Dove, Henry Fox, W. J. Phillips, B. R. Leach, F. L. 
Simanton, A. J. Ackerman, J. B. Gill, Dwight Isely, Thomas E. 
Snyder, F. R. Cole, Jacob Kotinsky, C. H. Popenoe, F. H. Chittenden, 
W. B. Wood, A. C. Baker, W. R. Walton, A. L. Quaintance. 

DiscusstoN BY SECRETARY.—In accordance with the provisions 
governing the use of the Plenary Power by the Commission, the Sec- 
retary gave formal notice to the Zoological Profession that these 
cases would come before the Commission for consideration. See 
(1) Monitore Zoologico Italiano 1917, v. 28, 183; (2) Ann. Mag. 
Hist. No. 114; 1917, v. 10,.484> (3) Zool, Anz, Hebw13, 1623; p46: 
These notices have resulted in communications reaching the Secre- 
tary as follows: 

Favorable to suspension: E, E. Austen, British Museum ; A. Brooker 
Klugh, Ontario; Chr. Aurivillius, Stockholm; E. P. Felt, State Ento- 
mologist, N. Y.; Sociedad Entomologica de Espatia; Sociedad (So- 
ciety of Minerva) Zaragonezade Ciencias Naturales; Academia 
de Ciencas de Zaragoza; Professors Andres (Paroma), Corti 
(Pavia), Berlese (Firenze), Giglio-Tos (Torino), Griffini (Bo- 
logna) ; Commissione de Nomenclatura Zoologica (Unione Zoologica 
Italiana) composed of Professors Monticelli, Ficalbi, Rosa, Ghiga ; 
Will Lundbeck (Copenhagen) ; Mortensen (Copenhagen, who states 


NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 9O 


nN 


that all of his colleagues, including Lundbeck, agree), Aldrich (West 
Lafayette), Cockerell (Boulder ). 

Opposed to suspension: Professors Bezzi (Torino) ; W. L. Mc- 
Atee, J. R. Mallock, Remington Kellogg (U.S. Biological Survey) ; 
and Silvestri (Portici). 

Letters from England indicate that English entomologists con- 
sider that Lamarck in 1801 determined Musca domestica as type of 
Musca. This view however is not in accordance with Opinion 79 
CG) le. 50): 

A very extensive correspondence on the foregoing proposition has 
reached the Secretary. From a strict standpoint of classification the 
evidence availabie in respect to the possible identity of Promusca 
IQI5, type VW. domestica, Conostoma 1801, type Ascaris conostoma= 
larva of ?M. domestica and Conosoma 1802, type Ascaris conosoma= 
larva of ?M. domestica, tends to eliminate Conostoma and Conosoma 
from consideration, thus apparently resulting in the adoption of 
Promusca for M. domestica unless the rules are suspended under the 
Plenary Power authorization. And for the purpose of recommenda- 
tion to the Commission, the Secretary adopts as his premise, based on 
the evidence before him, the frank statement by the appellants (en- 
tomologists) that under the rules, Musca has for its tvpe W/. vomitoria 
Linn. [cf. Latreille’s “Musca vomitoria F.”| and that Townsend 
acted in accordance with the rules when he proposed a new generic 
name for M. domestica. In making recommendation on this case to 
the Commission, the Secretary is influenced by his professional ex- 
perience not only as a zoologist familiar with zoological and medical 
literature, but also as a public health officer, who has been very inti- 
mately identified with the legal aspects of applied zoology and with 
the campaigns looking toward the control of the fly nuisance through 
the cooperation of the laity. In the opinion of the Secretary a strict 
application of the Rules of Nomenclature in the case of W/. domestica 
would result in confusion not only in the literature of Systematic 
Entomology but also in the literature of Applied Entomology, Gen- 
eral Zoology, Public Health, Sanitation, and Law, and it would be 
probably a half century, if not longer, before the literature of these 
various phases of the subject could be harmonized in compliance with 
the present Rules of Nomenclature. The Secretary is persuaded that 
the Zoological profession could not justify itself in insisting upon a 
strict application of the rules in this particular case and that a strict 
application would produce greater confusion than uniformity. Ac- 
cordingly, the Secretary recommends that: By authority of the 
power conferred on the Commission by the 9th International Con- 


6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


gress of Zoology to suspend the Régles as applied to any given case 
where in its judgment the strict application of the Regles will clearly 
result in greater confusion than uniformity, Article 30 is hereby 
suspended in the case of Musca Linnaeus, 1758, and Musca domestica 
Linneaus, 1758, is hereby designated as type of Musca, without 
prejudice to other cases. 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 13 Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, 
Handlirsch, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, 
Loennberg, Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, 2 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Hartert. 


Commissioner Jordan (D. S.) states: “ The Plenary Power can and should 
be used not in clear-cut cases of priority, but when in case of early authors, 
either side is arguable, and deviation from current nomenclature would lead to 
confusion rather than clarity. For early writers had no conception of genotypes 
and used the genus as a ‘ pigeon-hole. We might adopt the rule that we will 
accept current names, unless the reason for change is clear-cut and above 
reasonable cavil.” 

Commissioner Jordan (K.) states: “-May I draw your attention to the fol- 
lowing points? 

“ Under ‘ Discussion’ it is stated that Musca has for its type vomuitoria L. 
According to the data given by you, Latreille 1810 selected vomitoria F. as 
type, and Townsend identified this vomitoria F. with vomitoria L. That is not 
an identification generally accepted. Fabricius consistently describes his vomi- 
toria as having the frons ‘ fulva’; Latreille calls the frons ‘ roussatre.’ Linnaeus 
in F. Suec. expressly says that mortuorum differs from vonutoria .... frons 
inter oculos, una cum antennis et ore, albo aurata sit ceu membrana, quod in 
sequenti (= vomutoria) non obtinet. 

“ Anyhow, European specialists past and present maintain that vomitoria of 
Fabricius is not vomitoria L. To me it seems at best doubtful which actual 
species Latreille meant. 

“On the other hand, Macquart was quite definite in making domestica the 
type of Musca. In these circumstances a suspension of the rules appears to me 
a wrong move. It is inopportune to suspend the rules in face of the fact that 
we have definite facts, statements by Robineau with regard to Calliphora and 
by Macquart with regard to Musca and Lucilia, while Latreille’s action is 
indefinite, because it leaves us in doubt about the actual species selected. 

“Under No. 10 of the statement of the case it is said that ‘ This in accordance 
with Opinion No. 11 of the Intern. Commission is type.’ This statement is 
liable to mislead those Commissioners who are unaware that vomitoria F. and 
vomitoria L. are not clearly the same insects. The attention of the Com- 
missioners should have been drawn to this divergence of opinion among 
Dipterists, 7. ¢., the data given by Townsend do not represent the entire case. 

“The case of Musca has been submitted to the Entomological Committee on 
Nomenclature and a few prominent Dipterists. The Committee expresses the 
opinion that 


- 


NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO gO 7 


“ (1) Latreille’s selection of vomitoria Fabr. as genotype of Musca leaves 
it doubtful whether he meant one of the original 100 species or one which 
was not among them, and 

“ (2) Macquart in 1834 designated domestica as type of Musca. It follows 
that a suspension of the Rules is unnecessary. 

“Professor Bezzi is in favor of domestica being considered type of Musca. 

“Tn order to arrive at unanimity with regard to the genotype of Musca, it 
would be advisable to add to Commissioner Stejneger’s amendment after 
‘Musca Linnaeus 1758’ the words ‘ without prejudicing any other case.’ The 
suspension of the Rules is tantamount to saying that vomitoria F. 1s vomitoria 
L. This decision could then be quoted as a precedent in other cases where 
the species is likewise doubtful.” 


8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLE Ws 


OPINION 83 


ACANTHIZA PYRRHOPYGIA VIGORS AND HORSFIELD, 1827, VERSUS 
ACANTHIZA PYRRHOPYGIA GOULD, 1848 


SUMMARY.—The principle of the Rule of Homonyms is that any properly pub- 
lished identical name of later date is “ stillborn and cannot be brought to life.” 
Acanthiza pyrrhopygia Vigors and Horsfield, 1827, invalidates Acanthiza pyrrho- 
pygia Gould, 1848. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—A. J. Campbell, Box Hill, Victoria, Aus- 
tralia, presents the following case for opinion: 


Does Acanthiza pyrrhopygia Gould (“ Birds of Australia,” vol. III., pl. 58, 
1848) stand? (Type specimen No. 17505, in Academy of Sciences, Philadelphia. ) 

The name pyrrhopygia is not a homonym (of Acanthiza pyrrhopygia Vigors 
and Horsfield, Trans. Linn. Soc., vol. XV., p. 227, 1827) according to Article 35, 
that is, the same name for another “ species of the same genus.” 

The intention of Articles 34 and 35 is clearly to prevent confusion such as 
might arise by having the same designation, or name-label for two different 
birds (other than the same species). Plainly there should not be an Acanthiza 
pyrrhopygia of 1827 and another Acanthiza pyrrhopygia of 1848 (different 
species ). 

Gould changed the word Acanthiza into Hylacola but did not alter the 
specific name pyrrhopygia belonging to the original name-label. Therefore, 
the identical name pyrrhopygia of Vigors and Horsfield is accounted for being 
still in use for the bird described by them (now a Hylacola). As Gould’s 
byrrhopygia was another name-label given to a true Acanthiza, it could not 
be one and the same name used by Vigors and Horsfield and therefore the 
article does not apply. 

Again, as Acanthiza pyrrhopygia of Vigors and Horsfield has not been in 
use since 1842 and Acanthiza pyrrhopygia of Gould has been in common usage 
since 1848, it is evident that no confusion whatever resulted and the article 
does not apply. 

The International Code was founded primarily on the Strickland Code (1842) ; 
Rule 10 of the latter Code reads: ‘‘ A name should be changed which has been 
proposed for some other genus in zoology, or for some other species in the 
same genus when still retained for such genus, or species.” 

Opinion of a Barrister-at-Law: Acanthiza pyrrhopygia Gould, all turns on 
what is a homonym and in what cases it must be rejected. A homonym is 
“one and the same name for two different things.” If that were all, and every 
homonym is to be rejected, Gould’s Acanthiza pyrrhopygia would fall, for it 
and Vigor’s and Horsfield’s are the same name for two different birds. But by 
Article 35 it is not every homonym which is to be rejected, but only such a 
specific name as has previously been used for another species of the same genus. 
Now, Acanthiza pyrrhopygia had not been used for another species of Acan- ~ 
thiza before Gould used it, though it had been used for a species of a genus 
which is now conceded not to be an Acanthiza, or because it is generically 
separate, i. e., Hylacola. So, unless it is to be argued that Hylacola and 


NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 9O 9 


Acanthiza are of the same genus, or that though they are not, the words “the 
same,” in Article 35, mean “ which has been at some time regarded, by anyone, 
as the same” (and that is not what the article says, the article clearly con- 
templating identity in fact)—unless it can be so argued, Gould’s name is good 
and stands, as in my considered opinion it does. 

Discussion.—Generic concepts change from generation to genera- 
tion, from year to year, and from individual to individual. The 
generic concept of Taenia Linn., 1758, now covers three genera which 
are usually classified in two different orders. Article 35 does not desig- 
nate any particular generation, decade, or individual as basis for 
“the same genus,” hence it includes “‘ the same genus” (as, for in- 
stance, the one known as Taenia) in the concept of any or of all 
generations, decades, or individuals. That this is the logical inter- 
pretation of Article 35 becomes obvious from Article 36, which in 
citing a typical example ( Taenia ovilla 1790 and 1878) states “ Taenia 
ovilla, 1878, is suppressed as a homonym, and can never again be 
used: It was stillborn and cannot be brought to life, even when the 
species is placed in another genus (Thysanosoma)”. When Taenia 
ovilla, 1878, was suppressed, the conception of Taenia had changed 
very radically from that which existed in 1790; still this case is cited 
in the Rules as a typical example. Acanthiza pyrrhopygia 1827 and 
1848 represent a case of homonymy identical in principle with that of 
Taenia ovilla 1796 and 1878. A. pyrrhopygia 1848 was “ stillborn” 
and cannot be brought to life under the Rules. 

Any other interpretation of the Rule of Homonyms would lead to 
a situation surrounded with uncertainty and resulting in unnecessary 
changes in specific combinations. For instance— 

Assume that in 1890 Professor X considered 7. ovilla 1878 as 
generically distinct from 7. ovilla 1790, but that ovilla at that date 
(1890) had not been suppressed ; and that as owilla 1878 was available 
in the genus (Thysanosoma) which in his conception was distinct 
from Taenia, he introduced and continued to use the specific name. 

Assume, further, that in 1891 Professor Y considered Taenia and 
Thysanosoma as one and the same genus and that under the Rules 
he suppressed ovilla 1878 because of ovilla 1790; he would then use 
(with his generic concept) both a generic name (TJ aenia) and a spe- 
cific name (giardi) for one and the same species for which Professor 
X (with his generic concept) would use another generic name (Thy- 
sanosoma) and another specific name (ovilla 1878). Thus, one and 
the same species (ovilla 1878= giardi 1879) would have two different 
names according to the concept of the two authors, and since ovilla 
1878 was not suppressed in Taenia until 1891, it would still be valid 


IO SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL 7S 


in Thysanosoma because the transfer had been made prior to the 
suppression, 

The principle of the Rule of Homonyms is that any properly pub- 
lished identical name of later date is “ stillborn and cannot be brought 
to life.” 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 12 Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, 
Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, D. S. Jordan, K. Jordan, Kolbe, Loenn- 
berg, Skinner, Stejneger, and Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by one Commissioner: Handlirsch. 

Not voting, two Commissioners: Dautzenberg and Monticelli. 


Commissioner K. Jordan says: ‘“‘ This is the current interpretation of the 
above Rule. My vote is not a vote on the merits of that Rule.” 

Commissioner Hartert states that he concurs: 7. e., that Acanthiza pyrrho- 
pygia 1848 is stillborn, because there is already an A. p. of 1827. 

Commissioner Bather states: “I think it would be as well to state that 
Gould in 1842 (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1842, p. 135) founded the new genus Hylacola 
with Acanthiza pyrrhopygia Vig. & Horsf. as genotype. 

“Mr. Campbell raises a point that is really not quite clear in Article 35 of 
the Code. To cover it the wording should be emended by the addition after 
the words “of the same genus” of ‘‘or at any previous time published as 
belonging to the same genus.” I am not sure whether one ought to include all 
previous transferences of a species to other genera; that opens up rather a 
terrifying vista. If not, then the word “published” should be qualified by 
“ originally.” 

“T think, when cases of this kind arise, that the Commission should prepare 
an amendment to the rules, instead of leaving zoologists to struggle with a mass 
of “Opinions.” Or, at least, the opinion should state the broad principle, and 
the special case should be introduced only as an illustration of it. 

“ Consequently, I suggest that the second sentence of the Summary as now 
phrased should be put first, and that instead of “the identical name of” it 
should read “ any identical name of later date is.” 

“ Could ‘you not put this to the Commission? ”’ 

Note by Secretary: Commissioner Bather’s suggested change is an editorial 
matter and has been complied with. 


ies ft + ia 


SS ee he ee 


a nia. Fn =~ 


NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 9O 11 


OPINION 84 


TREMATODE, CESTODE, AND ACANTHOCEPHALA NAMES PLACED IN 
THE OFFICIAL List oF GENERIC NAMES 


SUMMARY.—The following names are hereby placed in the Official List of 
Generic Names: Tremaropa: Dicrocoeclium, Fasciola, Gastrodiscus, Hetero- 
phyes. CestopaA: Davainea, Dipylidium, Echinococcus, Taenia,. ACANTHOCE- 
PHALA: Gigantorhynchus. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—In the Proceedings of the. Ninth Interna- 
tional Congress on Zoology at Monaco (published 1914), pp. 858-859, 
the Commission published 11 generic names for Trematoda, 5 for 
Cestoda and 1 for Acanthocephala, which were under consideration 
for adoption in the Official List of Generic Names. 


The Secretary to the Commission (see p. 892 of the Proceedings of the 
Ninth International Congress on Zoology) was asked if it would be agreeable 
to him to re-submit the names in question to sub-committees of specialists, 
before they were formally approved. His reply was that the suggestion was 
entirely agreeable, and he withdrew his request for formal approval of 
this. list. 

In addition to publication in the Proceedings of the Congress at Monaco, 
these names have been made public by publication in the following places: 

Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 1915, Oct. 30, vol. 40, p. 87. 
Nature, r911, Nov. 23, vol. 88, p. 111. 
Science, 1912, Jan. 26, vol. 35, p. 140. 
Zoologischer Anzeiger, 1912, Jan. 26, vol. 35, p. 146. 

The names were also included in Circular Letter No. 1 from the Secretary’s 
office, and submitted to approximately 350 zoologists and zoological institutions 
of various kinds in the Argentine, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Holland, 
India, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Philippine Islands, Porto Rico, 
Russia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. Twenty copies were sent 
to each member of the Commission for distribution especially in his own 
country, 7. e., Austria, England, France, Germany, Italy, United States, Wales. 

Eleven lists were returned with no action taken, hence the persons returning 
them come under paragraph 4 of Circular Letter No. 1, that is to say, they 
have no opinion upon the matter either one way or the other, and accordingly 
the question as to the adoption or rejection of the names is immaterial to them. 
The eleven lists in question came from the following sources: Biological Staff 
of Princeton University, per E. G. Conklin; R. P. Cowles; A. G. Mayer; 
A. E. Lambert; Department of Zoology, Indiana University, per A. G. Henn; 
ei, Wiemann: E. Ll. Rices D. S. Jordan; H. D. Reed; H. F.. Nachtrieb; 
R. Blanchard. 

Twenty-five (25) persons expressed opinions on the names; some on all of 
the names, and others only on names with which they are best acquainted. In 
no case was any objection or question raised to any of the names included 
in this Opinion 84. The 25 persons in question were: J. F. Abbott; A. A. 


12 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Andrews; A. M. Banta; T. D. A. Cockerell ; Collin; C. B. Davenport ; 
Maurice C. Hall; S. F. Harmer; Albert Hassall; W. A. Herdman; L. Joubin; 
C. A. Kofoid; H. Kolbe; G. R. LaRue; C. E. McClung; E. C. McDonald; 
H, F. Perkins; H. S. Pratt; B. H. Ransom; R. I. Raymond; Oscar Riddle; 
J. W. Scott; H. J. Van Cleave; L. D. Wharton; H. V. Wilson. 

In July, 1915, the names included in this Opinion 84 were submitted to the 
members of the International Commission on Medical Zoology (Parasitology), 
as Circular Letter No. 10, with the statement that unless all papers were 
returned before approximately October 1915, the results would be tabulated 
and submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for 
final action. No reply has been received to Circular Letter No. 10 in regard 
to said names. 

Not a single objection of any kind appears to have reached the Secretary’s 
office in respect to the following names: 





‘TREMATODA : 
Dicrocoelium Dujardin, 1845a, 301, type Lan ceai itr lancer (=e 
dendriticum sub judice]. 
Fasciola Linnaeus, 1758a, 644, 648-649, type hontiee 
Gastrodiscus Leuckart in Cobbold, 1877e, 233-239, type sonsinoti [seu 
sonsinot teste Blanchard]. 
Heterophyes Cobbold, 1866a, 6, type aegyptiaca = heterophyes. 
CESTODA : 
Davainea R. Blanchard & Railliet, in R. Bl., 1801t, 428-440, type pro- 
glottina (in chickens; France). . 
Dipylidium Leuckart, 1863a, 400, type caninum (in dogs; Europe). 
Echinococcus Rudolphi, 1801a, 52-53, type granulosus (in sheep; Europe). 
Taenia Linnaeus, 1758a, 819-820, type solium (in Homo; Europe). 
ACANTHOCEPHALA : 
Gigantorhynchus Hamann, 18924, 196, type echinodiscus (in Myrmecophaga 
jubata, M. bivittata; Brazil). 


Discussion.—Every name is omitted from final list, to which any 
Commissioner in final vote raised any question. Accordingly the final 
vote in the Commission is unanimous. In view of the foregoing 
premises the generic names in the foregoing list are placed in the 
Official List of Generic Names. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 12 Commissioners: Allen, Apstein, 
Bather, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), 
Kolbe, Monticelli, Skinner, and Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, 3 Commissioners: Loennberg, Dautzenberg, Stejneger. 


NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 9O r? 


OPINION 85 


NINETY-EIGHT GENERIC NAMES IN CRUSTACEA PLACED IN THE 
OFFICIAL List OF GENERIC NAMES 


SUMMARY.—The following names are hereby placed in the Official List of 
Generic Names: Crustacea: Acmaeopleura, Asthenognathus, Bathyplax, 
Camptandrium, Camptoplax, Catoptrus, Ceratoplax, Chasmagnathus, Chasmo- 
carcinus, Clistocoeloma, Cyrtograpsus, Dissodactylus, Durckheimia, Epixanthus, 
Euchirograpsus, Eucrate, Eucratodes, Eucratopsis, Euryetisus, Euryplax, 
Eurytium, Fabia, Galene, Geryon, Glyptograpsus, Glyptoplax, Gomeza, Gone- 
plax, Halimede, Helice, Hephthopelta, Hexapus, Holometopus, Holothurio- 
philus, Homalaspis, Lachnopodus, Leptodius, Liagore, Libystes, Liomera, L1- 
paesthesius, Litocheira, Lophopanopeus, Lophopilumnus, Lybia, Melybia, 
Metasesarma, Metopocarcinus, Micropanope, Notonyx, Oediplax, Ommato- 
carcinus, Opisthopus, Orphnoxanthus, Panoplax, Paragalene, Parapanope, 
Parapleurophrycoides, Paraxanthus, Percnon, Perigrapsus, Pilumnoides, Pilum- 
nus, Pinnaxodes, Pinnixa, Pinnotherelia, Pinnotheres, Planes, Platychirograp- 
sus, Platypilumnus, Platyxanthus, Polydectus, Prionoplax, Pseudocarcinus, 
Pseudopinnixa, Pseudorhombila, Psopheticus, Ptychognathus, Pyxidognathus, 
Rhithropanopeus, Rhizopa, Ruppellioides, Sarmatium, Scalopidia, Scleroplax, 
Speocarcinus, Sphaerozius, Tetraxanthus, Tetrias, Thaumastoplax, Utica, 
Varuna, Xanthasia, Xanthodius, Xenophthalmodes, Xenophthalmus, Zosimus, 
Zozymodes. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—In Circular Letter No. 40 dated November 
1917 and mailed to approximately 350 zoologists and zoological 
laboratories and institutions, the Secretary gave notice that 101 ge- 
neric names in Crustacea had been studied by Miss Mary J. Rathbun, 
Secretary of the Advisory Commission of Nomenclature of Crustacea, 
with a view to their possible inclusion in the Official List of Generic 
Names. She has since withdrawn the name Pelaeus on ground of 
subjective synonymy. Miss Rathbun considers that the remaining 
names are nomenclatorially correct and valid under the Code. In 
addition to votes from the Commission, only 12 responses have been 
received, as follows: 


(a) Leon J. Cole, Philip P. Calvert, E. A. Goldman, R. C. McGregor, John 
Neuman, and Thomas R. R. Stebbing raised no objection to any name but did 
not specifically vote in favor of the names. 

(b) F. Doflein, M. W. Lyon, Jr., Carlos Moreira (votes on Brazilian names 
only), W. D. Pierce (votes on only part of names), and Dr. Franz Poche 
(with reservation as respects application of Art. 30g of the Code to the names), 
vote in favor of the names. 

(c) Wm. H. Dall raises a question as to Aratus 1853 in view of Arata 1784. 

The Secretary has stricken from the list, without prejudice, the names 
Aratus (because of the question raised by Dr. Dall) and Sesarma (because of 


14. SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


a difference of technical opinion between Miss Rathbun and Commissioner 
Apstein as respects genotype). 


The following names receiving a majority vote in Commission, 
and to which no objection of any kind appears to have reached the 
Secretary’s office, are accordingly placed hereby on the Official List 
of Generic Names: 


Acmacopleura Stimpson, 1858, 105, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 10, type A. 
parvula Stimpson, 1858. 

Asthenognathus Stimpson, 1858, 107, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. v. 10, type 
A. inaequipes Stimpson, 1858. 

Bathyplax A. Milne-Edwards, 1880, 16, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., v. 8, Dec. 20, 
type B. typhlus A. Milne-Edwards, 1880. 

Camptandrium Stimpson, 1858, 106, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., v. 10, type 
C. sexdentatum Stimpson, 1858. 

Camptoplax Miers, 1884, 239, Crust. “ Alert,” type C. coppingeri Miers, 1884. 

Catoptrus A. Milne-Edwards, 1870 [82] no pagination, Ann. Sci. Nat. (5), v. 13. 
Art. 2, type C. nitidus A. Milne-Edwards, 1870. 

Ceratoplax Stimpson, 1858, 96, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., v. 10, type C. 
ciliatus Stimpson, 1858 = ciliata. 

Chasmagnathus de Haan, 1833, 5; 1835, 27, Fauna Japon., type C. converus = 
Ocypode (Chasmagnathus) convexa de Haan, 1835. 

Chasmocarcinus Rathbun, 1898, 284, Bull. Lab. Nat. Hist. State Univ. Iowa, 
v. 4, type C. typicus Rathbun, 1808. 

Clistocoeloma A. Milne-Edwards, 1873, 310, Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat., 
Paris, v. 9, type C. balansae A. Milne-Edwards, 1873. 

Cyrtograpsus Dana, 1851, 247, 250, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 5, type 
C. angulatus Dana, 1851. 

Dissodactylus Smith, 1870, 172, Trans. Conn. Acad. Sci., v. 2, type D. nitidus 
Smith, 1870. 

Durckheimia de Man, 1880, 442, Zool. Jahrb. Syst., v. 4, type D. carinipes de 
Man, 1880. 

Epixanthus Heller, 1861, 323, Sitz. Akad. Wien, v. 43, pt. 1, type E. kotschii 
Heller, 1861 = Ozius frontalis Milne-Edwards,; 1834. 

Euchirograpsus Milne-Edwards, 1853, 175 [141], Ann. Sci. Nat. (3), v. 20, 
type E. liguricus Milne-Edwards, 1853. 

Eucrate de Haan, 1835, 36, Fauna Japon., type E. crenata = Cancer (Eucrate) 
crenatus de Haan, 1835. 

Eucratodes A. Milne-Edwards, 1880, 346, Crust. Rég. Mex., type EF. agassizii 
A. Milne-Edwards, 188c. 

Eucratopsis Smith, 1869, 35, Trans. Conn. Acad. Sci., v. 2, type Eucrate 
crassimanus Dana, 1851. 

Euryetisus Cano, 1889, 88, 200, Boll. Soc. Nat. Napoli, v. 3, type E. deplanatus 
Cano, 1880. 

Euryplax Stimpson, 1859, 60, Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist. N. Y., v. 7, type E. nitida = 
nitidus Stimpson, 18509. 

Eurytium Stimpson, 1859, 56, Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist. N. Y., v. 7, type E. limosum 
Stimpson, 1859 = Cancer limosus Say, 1818 = Panopeus limosus Milne- 
Edwards, 1834. 


NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO gO I 


on 


Fabia Dana, 1851, 253, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 5, type F. subquadrata 
Dana, 1851. 

Galene de Haan, 1833, 4, 19, Fauna Japon., type G. bispinosa = Cancer (Galene) 
bispinosus de Haan, 1833 = C. bispinosus Herbst, 1783. 

Geryon Krgyer, 1837, 20, Naturh. Tidssk., v. 1, type G. tridens Kréyer, 1837. 

Glyptograpsus Smith, 1870, 153, Trans. Conn. Acad. Sci., v. 2, type G. impressus 
Smith, 1870. 

Glyptoplax Smith, 1870, 164, Trans. Conn. Acad. Sci., v. 2, type G. pugnar 
Smith, 1870. 

Gomesa Gray, 1831, 39, Zool. Misc., type G. bicornis Gray, 1831. 

Goneplax Leach, 1814, 393, 430, Edin. Encyc., v. 7. (Spelled Goneplat on p. 393, 
Goneplax on p. 430. The first form here is treated as a typographical error, 
the second was used also in 1815 by Leach. It was not until 1816 that the 

, word was spelled Gonoplax.) Type, Ocypode bispinosa Lamarck, 1801 = 
Cancer angulatus Pennant, 1777 = C. rhomboides Linnaeus, 1758. 

Halimede de Haan, 1835, Fauna Japon., type Cancer (Halimede) fragifer de 
Haan, 1835. 

Helice de Haan, 1833, 5; 1835, 28, Fauna Japon.; type Ocypode (Helice) tridens 
de Haan, 1835. 

Hephthopelta Alcock, 1899, 76, Account of Deep Sea Brachyura Coll. by 
Investigator, type H. lugubris Alcock, 1809. 

Hexapus de Haan, 1833, 5; 1835, 35, Fauna Japon., type H. serpes de Haan, 
1835 = Cancer sexpes Fabricius, 1708. 

Holometopus Milne-Edwards, 1853, 187 [153], Ann. Sci. Nat. (3), v. 20, type 
Grapsus (Pachysoma) haematocheir de Haan, 1835. 

Holothuriophilus Nauck, 1880, 24, 66, Zeits. f. wiss. Zool., v. 34, pt. 1, type 
H. trapeziformis Nauck, 1880. 

Homalaspis A. Milne-Edwards, 1863, 279, Ann. Sci. Nat. (4), v. 20, type 
H. plana= Xantho planus Milne-Edwards, 1834. 

Lachnopodus Stimpson, 1858, 32, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 10, type 
L. rodgersti Stimpson, 1858. 

Leptodius A. Milne-Edwards, 1863, 284, Ann. Sci. Nat. (4), v. 20, type Chlor- 
odius exaratus Milne-Edwards, 1834. 

Liagore de Haan, 1833, 4, 19, Fauna Japon., type L. rubromaculata = Cancer 
(Liagore) rubromaculatus de Haan, 1833. 

Libystes A. Milne-Edwards, 1867, 285, Ann. Soc. Ent. France (4), v. 7, type 

_L. nitidus A. Milne-Edwards, 1867. 

Liomera Dana, 1851, 124, Am. Jour. Sci. (2), v. 12, type L. cinctimana Dana, 
1851 = Carpilius cinctimanus White, 1848. 

Lipaesthesius Rathbun, 1808, 584, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., v. 21, type L. leeanus 
Rathbun, 1808. 

Litocheira Kinahan, 1856, 116, Jour. Roy. Dublin Soc., v. 1, type L. bispinosa 
Kinahan, 1856. 

Lophopanopeus Rathbun, 1808, 272, Bull. Lab. Nat. Hist. State Univ. Iowa, 
v. 4, type L. bellus = Xantho bella Stimpson, 1860. 

Lophopilumnus Miers, 1886, 148, Challenger Rept., Zool., v. 17, type Pilumnus 
dilatipes Adams & White, 1848. 

Lybia Milne-Edwards, 1834, 431, Hist. Nat. Crust., v. 1, type Melia tesselata 
Latreille, 1825 = L. tresselata Milne-Edwards, 1834=Grapsus tesselatus 
Latreille, 1818. 


16 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Melybia Stimpson, 1871, 144, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zo6l., v. 2, type M. thalamita 
Stimpson 1871. 

Metasesarma Milne-Edwards, 1853, 188 [154], Ann. Sci. Nat. (3), v. 20, type 
M. rousseauxi Milne-Edwards, 1853. 

Metopocarcinus Stimpson, 1860, 216, ‘Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist. N. Y., v. 7, type 
M. truncatus Stimpson, 1860. 

Micropanope Stimpson, 1871, 139, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zodl., v. 2, type M. 
sculptipes Stimpson, 1871,= M. pugilator A. Milne-Edwards, 1880, (not 
M. sculptipes A. Milne-Edwards, 1880). 

Notonyx A. Milne-Edwards, 1873, 268, Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat., Paris, v. 9, 
type N. nitidus A. Milne-Edwards 1873. 

Oediplax Rathbun, 1893, 241, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., v. 16, type O. granulatus 
Rathbun, 1803, = granulata. : 

Ommatocarcinus White, 1852, 393, App. No. 6 to Narr. of Voy. H. M. S. 
Rattlesnake, v. 2, type O. macgillivrayi White, 1852. 

Opisthopus Rathbun, 1893, 251, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., v. 16, type O. transversus 
Rathbun, 1893. 

Orphnoxanthus Alcock, 1898, 127, Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, v. 67, type 
Xanthodes microps Alcock & Anderson, 1894. 

Panoplax Stimpson, 1871, 151, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., v. 2, type P. depressa 
Stimpson, 1871. 

Paragalene Kossmann, 1878, 253, Arch. f. Natur., v. 44, pt. 1, type P. neapolitana 
Kossmann, 1878. 

Parapanope de Man, 1895, 513, Zool. Jahrb., Syst., v. 8, type P. euwagora de 
Man, 1895. 

Parapleurophrycoides Nobili, 1906, 264, Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, type 
P. roseus Nobili, 1906. 

Paraxanthus Milne-Edwards & Lucas, 1843, 18, d’Orbigny’s Voy. l’Amér. 
Mérid., v. 6, pt. 1, type P. barbiger = P. hirtipes Milne-Edwards & Lucas, 
1843, = Gecarcinus barbiger Poeppig, 1836. 

Percnon Gistel, 1848, viii, Naturg. Thierreichs, type P. planissimum = Cancer 
planissimus Herbst, 1804; submitted for Acanthopus de Haan, preoccupied. 

Perigrapsus Heller, 1862, 522 [4], Verh. K. K. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, v. 12, 
1 Abth., type P. excelsus Heller, 1862. 

Pilumnoides Milne-Edwards & Lucas, 1843, 21, d’Orbigny’s Voy. 1l’Ameér. 
Mérid., v. 6, pt. 1, type P. perlatus Milne-Edwards & Lucas, 1843 = 
Hepatus perlatus Poeppig, 1839. 

Pilumnus Leach, 1815, 309, 321, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., v. 11, type Cancer 
hirtellus Pennant, 1777==C. hirtellus Linnaeus, 1761. 

Pinnaxodes Heller, 1865, 67, Reise Novara, v. 2, pt. 3, type P. hirtipes 
Heller, 1865. 

Pinnixa White, 1846, 177, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., v. 18, type P. cylindrica White, 
1846 = Pinnotheres cylindricum Say, 1818. 

Pinnotherelia Milne-Edwards & Lucas, 1843, 24, d’Orbigny’s Voy. l’Amér. 
Mérid., v. 6, pt. 1, type P. laevigata Milne-Edwards & Lucas, 1843. 

Pinnotheres Latreille, 1801-2 [an X], 25, Hist. Nat. Crust., v. 3, type Cancer 
pisum Fabricius, 1775, = C. pisum Linneus, 1767. 

Planes Bowdich, 1825, xi & 15, Excursions in Madeira & Porto Santo, pl. 13, 
figs. 2a, 2b, type P. clypeatus Bowdich, 1825 = Cancer minutus Linn., 1758. 


NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO gO 17 


Platychirograpsus de Man, 1806, 292, Zool. Anz., No. 506, type P. spectabilis 
de Man, 1806. 

Platypilumnus Alcock, 1894, 401, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (6), v. 13, type lee 
gracilipes Alcock, 1804. 

Platyxanthus A. Milne-Edwards, 1863, 280, Ann. Sci. Nat. (4), v. 20, type 
Xantho orbignyi Milne-Edwards & Lucas, 1843. 

Polydectus Milne-Edwards, 1837, 145, Hist. Nat. Crust., v. 2, type P. cupulifer = 
P. cupulifera Milne-Edwards, 1837 = Pilumnus cupulifer Latreille, 1825. 
Polydectus Rafinesque, 1815, 142, Analyse de la Nature, a genus of mol- 
lusks, is a nomen nudum. 

Prionoplax Milne-Edwards, 1852, 163 [127], Ann. Sci. Nat. (3), v. 18, type 
P. spinicarpa = spinicarpus Milne-Edwards, 1852. 

Pseudocarcinus Milne-Edwards, 1834, 407, Hist. Nat. Crust., v. 1, type Cancer 
gigas Lamarck, 1818. Type specified by Miers, 1886, 141, Challenger Rept., 
Zool., v. 17. 

Pseudopinnixa Ortmann, 1894, 694, Zool. Jahrb. Syst., v. 7, type P. carinata 
Ortmann, 1804. 

Pseudorhombila Milne-Edwards, 1837, 58, Hist. Nat. Crust., v. 2, type Melia 
quadridentata Latreille, 1825. 

Psopheticus Wood-Mason, 18092, pl. 5, fig. 1, Illus. Zool. Investigator, Crust., 
pt. 1, type P. stridulans Wood-Mason, 1802. 

Ptychognathus Stimpson, 1858, 104, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 10, type 
P. glaber Stimpson, 1858. 

Pyxidognathus A. Milne-Edwards, 18709, 109, Bull. Soc. Philo. (7), v. 3, type 
P. granulosus A. Milne-Edwards, 1879. 

Rhithropanopeus Rathbun, 1808, 273, Bull. Lab. Nat. Hist. State Univ. Iowa, 
v. 4, type Pilumnus harris Gould, 1841. 

Rhizopa Stimpson, 1858, 95, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 10, type R. 
gracilipes Stimpson, 1858. 

Ruppellioides A. Milne-Edwards, 1867, 279, Ann. Soc. Ent. France (4), v. 7, 
type R. convexus A. Milne-Edwards, 1867. 

Sarmatium Dana, 1851, 247, 251, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 5, type S. 
crassum Dana, 1851. 

Scalopidia Stimpson, 1858, 95, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., v. 10, type S. 
Spinosipes Stimpson, 1858. 

Scleroplax Rathbun, 1893, 250, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., v. 16, type S. granulata = 
granulatus Rathbun, 1803. 

Speocarcinus Stimpson, 1859, 58, Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist. N. Y., v. 7, type S. 
carolinensis Stimpson, 1850. 

Sphaerozius Stimpson, 1858, 35, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. v. 10, type 
S. nitidus Stimpson, 1858. 

Tetraxanthus Rathbun, 1808, 275, Bull. Lab. Nat. Hist. State Univ. lowa, v. 4, 
type Xanthodes bidentatus A. Milne-Edwards, 1880. 

Tetrias Rathbun, 1898, 607, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., v. 21, type T. scabripes 
Rathbun, 1808. 

Thaumastoplax Miers, 1881, 261, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (5), v. 8, type T. anom- 
alipes Miers, 1881. 

Utica White, 1847, 85, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., v. 15, type U. gracilipes 
White, 1847. 


18 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 738 


Varuna Milne-Edwards, 1830, 511, Dict. Class. Hist. Nat., v. 16, type V. 
litterata Milne-Edwards = Cancer litteratus Fabricius, 1708. 

Xanthasia White, 1846, 176, Ann. Mag: Nat. Hist., v. 18, type X. murigera 
White, 1846. 

Aanthodius Stimpson, 1859, 52, Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist. N. Y., v. 7, type X. 
sternberghu Stimpson, 1859. (lf Xanthodius be considered not generically 
distinct from Leptodius, it must, according to the Law of Priority, take 
precedence of Leptodius. M. J. R.) 

Xenophthalmodes Richters, 1880, 155, Fauna Mauritius, type X. moebii Richters, 
1880. 

Xenophthalmus White, 1846, 177, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., v. 18, type X. pin- 
notheroides White, 1846. 

Zosimus Leach in Desmarest, 1823, 228, Dict. Sci. Nat., v. 28, type Cancer 
aeneus Linnaeus, 1758. (It was not until 1825 that Desmarest specified the 
author of aeneus. M. J. R.) 

Zozymodes Heller, 1861, 8[6], Verh. K. K. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, v. 11, type 
Z. carinipes Heller, 1861. 

Concurring Commissioners, eight: Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D.S.) 
(states: “ I have no ground for a personal opinion in any case. But 
unless disputed by authority | favor adoption of all.”) Jordan (K.), 
Kolbe (votes for part), Monticelli, Skinner (states: “I have no 
objection to any of these names.” ), and Stiles. 

Dissenting Commissioners, two: Apstein (objects to one name, 
which has now been stricken from the list ; no expression of approval 
as respects others) and Handlirsch (states: ‘I find it not necessary 
to include such names in an official list.” ) : 

Not voting, five Commissioners: Bather, Dautzenberg, Hartert 
(states: “‘ No opinion, immaterial to me, no knowledge of Crusta- 
ceans.”), Loennberg, and Stejneger. 


NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 9O 19 


OPINION 86 
CoNULINUS VON Martens, 1895 


SUMMARY.—The generic name Conulinus von Martens, 1895, takes as type 
Buliminus (Conulinus) conulus Rv., and is not necessarily invalidated by 
Conulina Bronn. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Major M. Connolly has presented the fol- 
lowing case: 


Conulinus von Martens (Mollusca) was first proposed as a subgenus of 
Buliminus without description of its points or definition of genotype in Nachr. 
d. Deutsch. Malak. Ges., 1895, p. 180, in a descriptive list of new species: 

“No. 16. Buliminus (Conulinus n.) Ugandae.’ The author then describes 
the species and adds at the end of the description the words “ verwandt mit 
B. conulus Rv.” He then describes two other new species, Buliminus (Conuli- 
nus) hildebrandti and B. (C.) metula. 

No genotype is nominated, and the whole point is whether it is possible tor 
B. conulus Rv. to be admitted as the type, as it is not placed by the author in 
his new subgenus in his original list, although he mentions that one of his 
new species, belonging to that subgenus is “ verwandt” with conulus. 

In his work on “ Beschalte Weichthiere deutsch Ost-Africa,” 1897, on p. 64, 
von Martens defines and extends the subgenus Conulinus and nominates 6 
conulus Pfr. (a misprint for Rv.) as type, thus showing that he probably had 
that species in his mind as type when he originally propounded the subgenus, 
although he omitted to say so. 

In 1914, Gude (Fauna of British India, Mollusca, vol. II, p. 280) rejects 
Conulinus yon Mts. as void, owing to the prior existence of Conulina Bronn, 
1835, and proposes in its place Edouardia [not Edwardsia quatr., 1842], with 
B. conulus “ Pfr.” (another misprint for Rv.) as type. 

The questions therefore which require to be settled are: 

(1) Is the name Conulinus acceptable at all, or should it be replaced by 
Edouardia? 

(2) If it is acceptable, is B. conulus Rv. acceptable as its type? 

The matter is now of very considerable importance, as recent anatomical 
investigation has proved that practically all the large South African species, 
which have usually been placed in Pachnodus, do not belong to that genus at all, 
but are similar to conulus in their anatomy, and even further, are so different 
in that respect from the nearest subfamilies in which they can be placed that 
it may be necessary to place them in a separate one, in which case it is important 
that the name of their genus should be absolutely unassailable. If conulus is 
acceptable as the type of Conulinus, the latter name is available for the genus; 
but if the type of Conulinus must be selected from the three [new] species in 
von Martens’ original list, it will not be safe to apply it to the South African 
forms, including conulus, until the anatomy of whatever is selected as the type 
species is known; there is no proof, as yet, that it is the same as that of conulus. 
A ruling is also very desirable as to whether Edouardia Gude should replace 
Conulinus or be relegated to its synonymy. 


20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Discussion.— 

(1) The statement by von Martens, 1895, that B. (Conulinus) 
ugandae is ““ verwandt mit B. conulus Rv.” is equivalent to saying 
that B. conulus Reeve is allied to B. (C.) ugandae; and by that must 
be meant that B. conulus Reeve belongs to the new subgenus Conu- 
linus. No more is said about B. conulus because von Martens was 
describing new species and not revising old ones. 

(2) We have, then, given four syn-genotypes of the subgenus 
Conulinus viz. B. ugandae, B. hildebrandti, and B. metula, all new 
species, and B. conulus the well-known species of Reeve. 

(3) If attention be confined for the moment to this paper (1895), 
anyone selecting a genotype would fix on B. conulus Reeve for two 
reasons : 

(a) As the common well-known species, reference to which 
is dragged in by the author with the obvious purpose of explain- 
ing his new subgenus ; 

(b) As bearing the trivial name on which the subgeneric name 
is, without any doubt, based. 

(4) The correctness of this conclusion is proved by von Martens’ 
own action (1897) in fixing B. conulus as genotype. 

(5) Conulinus von Martens is not preoccupied by Conulina Bronn ; 

(6) But, whether as Conulinus or as Edouardia, Gude (1914) 
confirms B. conulus as genotype. 

(7) There is accordingly no difficulty in following the action of 
previous authors and retaining B. conulus as genotype. 

The answer therefore is: 

Conulinus von Martens stands, with genotype Buliminus conulus 
Reeve. 

The foregoing case has been studied for the Commission indepen- 
dently by Dr. Wm. H. Dall, by Dr. Paul Bartsch, and by the Secre- 
tary, and all agree with the foregoing findings. 

Opinion prepared by Commissioner Bather. 

Opinion concurred in by 13 Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, 
Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), 
Kolbe, Loennberg, Monticelli, Skinner, Stiles. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissione;. 

Not voting 2 Commissioners: Dautzenberg, Stejneger. 


NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 90 21 


OPINION 87 
Tue Status oF Proor-SHEETS IN NOMENCLATURE 


SUMMARy.—Printer’s proof-sheets do not constitute publication and, there- 
fore, have no status under the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.——Dr. Wm. H. Dall, of the U. S. National 
Museum, presents the following case for opinion: 


Does the exhibition, to a few friends, of a proof-sheet for correction or 
expression of opinion, and not for publication or sale, containing a nude name, 
constitute publication and validation of a generic name forming part of the nude 
name? I enclose an example of such a case, which is claimed by some to 
validate the nude name. 


Genus MecAsystTropHaA Lea 


Megasystropha Lea, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 2nd ser., vol. 8, p. 5, Jan. 1864. 
Type Planorbis newberryi Lea, 1858. 

Carinifex W. G. Binney, Smithsonian Misc. Coll. No. 143, part 2, p. 74, Sept. 
1865. Type Planorbis newberryi Lea, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. for 1858, p. 41. 


December 9, 1863, Mr. W. G. Binney was engaged in preparing an account of 
the land and fresh water shells of the United States for the Smithsonian, and, 
desiring the opinion and criticism of his colleagues, he induced Professor Henry 
to send out a set of proof-sheets (not for sale) to a limited number of persons 
interested in the study of mollusks. In the preface to these sheets, Professor 
Henry, while explaining their purpose, remarks: 

“As a mere proof which will undoubtedly receive many corrections, these 
pages should not be quoted as authority or referred to as a published work.” 

These proofs were in page form frinted on one side of the paper and on the 
eleventh sheet occurs the absolutely nude name “ Carinifex newberryi Lea.” 

There was, previously to this publication, an Ancylus newberryi Lea, 1858, a 
Planorbis newberryi Lea, 1858, a Melania newberryi Lea, 1860, and a Goniobasis 
newberryi Lea, 1863, but no Carinifex newberryi, nor in the proof-sheets re- 
ferred to was there any indication which of the above species might be intended 
by Binney’s Carinifex newberryi. 

The first publication of the genus Carinifex occurs as indicated in the preced- 
ing synonymy in September, 1865. But Lea’s name had been fully diagnosed 
and published January or February, 1864. It would seem that under the 
circumstances and according to the rules, Megasystropha should be accepted. 


Discusston.—-The Secretary has verified the two printed refer- 
ences in question, namely, Lea 1864, p. 5, and Binney 1865, p. 74. 

From the statement of the case it is obvious that the proof-sheets 
stated to have been sent out December 9, 1863, were intended neither 
as a permanent record nor as generally accessible nor as a published 
work. Accordingly they have no status of publication under the In- 


22 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL 7/3 


ternational Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, and the Secretary 
recommends the adoption of the following Opinion by the Commis- 
sion: 

Printer’s proof-sheets do not constitute publication and therefore 
have no status under the International Rules of Zoological Nomencla- 
ture. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, 
Dautzenberg, Handlirsch, Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), 
Kolbe, Loennberg, Monticelli, Skinner, Steyneger, Stiles, and Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, three Commissioners: Hartert, Hoyle, and Dabbene. 


ct 


? 


NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 9O 23 


OPINION 88 
OTARION DIFFRACTUM vs. CYPHASPIS BURMEISTERI 


SUMMARY.—The name of a species is not disqualified merely because the 
author included in his conception bodily parts of more than one species. The 
name of a genus based on such a species is therefore available. Otarion 
diffractum Zenker is valid. Otarion is to be preferred to Cy/phaspis, and C. 
burmetsteri Barr. is a synonym of O. diffractum. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Dr. Rudolph Richter presents the follow- 
ing case for Opinion: 


Wird der Name einer Art und Gattung dadurch ungultig, dass der Autor 
Korperteile eines anderen Tieres fiir zugehOrige Teile der typischen Art ansah? 


Otarion diffractum Zenker, 1833, vs. Cyphaspis burmeistert Barrande, 1846. 
Otarion Zenker, 1833, vs. Cyphaspis Burmeister, 1843. 


1. Die Trilobiten-Art Otarion diffractum wurde von Zenker (Beitrage zur 
Naturgeschichte der Vorwelt. Jena 1833, p. 44, Taf. IV) mit sorgfaltiger 
Beschreibung und mehreren, kenntlichen Abbildungen aufgestellt. Die Art 
grtindet sich in allen wesentlichen Punkten der Diagnose und in der Wahl des 
Namens* “ Otarion, Obrtrilobit’” ausdrticklich auf das Kopfschild. Das 
zusammengeschwemmte Vorkommen fuhrte jedoch den Autor zu dem Irrtum, 
den Rumpf (mit Pygidium) einer anderen Art als zu jenem Kopfe gehorig 
zu betrachten. 

J. Barrande hat 1846 (Notice preliminaire sur le systeme Silurien et les 
Trilobites de Boheme. Leipzig 1846, p. 59,-Vervollstandigt in: Systeme 
Silurien du Centre de la Boheme. 1. Paris-Prag. 1852, p. 484) das Kopfschild 
derselben Art als Cyphaspis burmeisteri Barr., 1846, neu benannt. Er tat dies 
im vollen Bewusstsein und mit ausdrucklicher Betonung, dass der Kopf von 
Otarion diffractum Zenk. und die neue Art Cyphaspis burmeistert ohne Zweifel 
derselben Art angehOren (1852, p. 25, 828). Fiir den Rumpf (mit Pygidium) 
der zweiten Art, die Zenker als zugeh6rig zu dem Kopf diffractum gehalten 
hatte, errichtete Barrande, im gleichen Bewusstsein der Identitat, die Art beau- 
monti (Calymene? beaumonti Barr., 1846, p. 52; Cromus beaumonti 1852, p. 826, 
828, 52). Barrande erklarte sich zur Aufstellung der beiden neuen Arten be- 
rechtigt, weil die Art diffractum sich durch die Vereinigung von Teilen 
verschiedener Tiere als ungiltig erweise. Der Gebrauch folgt Barrande. 

Die Frage ist: Verliert ein Art-Name seine Giiltigkeit dadurch, dass sein 
Autor Ko6rperteile eines anderen Tieres ftir zugeh6rig ansah; zumal, wenn aus 
der Originalarbeit hervorgeht, dass die fremden Korperteile fur die Diagnose 
und Benennung unwesentlich waren, und wenn der zweite Autor genau wusste, 
was der erste Autor gemeint hat? 








*“Weeen, des in der Nackengegend zu beiden Kopfseiten  befindlichen 
Hockerchens, was mit einem Ohrchen oder Ohrlappchen verglichen werden 
kann, habe ich den Namen Oftarion (aus dem Griechischem, von wrdpvor, 
Ohrchen) gewahlt” p. 44. 


24 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLS 


2. Die Gattung Otarion Zenker, 1833, wurde gleichzeitig mit O. diffractum 
fur diese Art aufgestellt. Da eine zweite Art (“ Otarion (?) squarrosum”) 
nur mit ausdricklichem, wiederholt ausgesprochenem Zweifel* zu Otarion 
gestellt wurde, ist die Gattung monotypisch und ist O. diffractum der Genotyp. 
Und zwar ist (nach 1) der Genotyp die vom Kopfschild vertretene Art also 
diejenige, die Barrande spater Cyphaspis burmeisteri nannte. 

H. Burmeister (Die Organisation der Trilobiten. Berlin, 1843) erkannte p. 
67, dass die Art Otarion diffractuin Zenker, 1833, Teile unzusammengehoriger 
Arten enthalte und entchied “Diese Gattung ist daher aus der Trilobiten- 
Liste vollig zu streichen.” Auf p. 193 errichtete Burmeister das Genus 
Cyphaspis, Genotyp durch Monotypie: C. clavifrons (Dalman). Mit dieser 
Cyphaspis clavifrons ist aber (was Burmeister noch nicht wusste) der Genotyp 
von Otarion, O. diffractum (=Cyphaspis burmeisteri Barrande, 1846), kon- 
generisch. 

Barrande, 1852, p. 24, erklarte, aus dem gleichen Grunde wie Burmeister, die 
Gattung Otarion Zenker, 1833, fiir hinfallig und setzte Cyphaspis Burmeister, 
1843, dafiir ein. Der Gebrauch folet Barrande. 

* Xk * * 


Wird die Frage I so entschieden, dass die Art Otarion diffractum Zenker, 
1833, als Species (statt Cyphaspis burmeisterit Barr., 1846) giiltig ist, so muss 
auch Otarion Zenker, 1833, als Gattung (statt Cyphaspis Burmeister, 1843) 
gultig sein. Unabhangig von dieser Entscheidung ist die andere, ob der 
Gebrauch die Suspendierung der “Internat. Regeln” in diesem Falle recht- 
fertigt. 


Discussion.—In the same way as many genera have notoriously 
been based on several species subsequently found to belong to more 
than one genus, so has many a species been based on numerous speci- 
mens, some of which have subsequently been relegated to other spe- 
cies or even genera. In this respect there is no difference between 
extinct and recent species. The procedure to be followed in such 
cases is well known. 

The difference that arises in the case of some fossils depends on 
the fact that many fossils are incomplete, and that a conception of 
the whole must therefore be based on more than one specimen. The 
specimens thus utilized may prove to be of diverse species or genera. 
Thus we have drawings of crinoids with the cup of one species, the 
arms of another, and the stem possibly of a third; reptiles with limb- 
bones derived from varied sources; and so on. 

Essentially there is no difference between this mixture and that 
arising among recent species. The remedy is the same. 





*“ Bis jetzt kenne ich bloss 2 hierhergehérige Arten, und von der zweiten ist 
es selbst nicht ausser Zweifel, ob sie wohl unter diese Gattung zubringen sey.” 
(p. 44).—‘“ Es mochte nicht unwahrscheinlich seyn, dass, wenn man einmal ein 
vollstandiges Exemplar auffande, diese Art den Typus einer neuen Gattung 
enthielte” (p. 47). 


NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 90 2 


wn 


Another kind of difficulty, however, is more likely to be presented 
by fossils than by recent species. If in a description or a drawing 
the characters are inextricably mingled and inaccurately presented, 
it may be impossible to recognize the component species except by 
external evidence. In such a case the name has no recognizable 
foundation, and if the first reviser has declined to adopt it on that 
ground, his action is justified. 

In the present case no such plea was raised and the action of 
Burmeister and Barrande was therefore unjustified. 

The obvious course therefore is to fix on one of the figured head- 
shields as the holotype of Otarion diffractum Zenker. The generic 
and specific names will then both hold good, and will reckon 
Cyphaspis and C. burmeistert among their synonyms. Cyphaspis 
clavifrons will become Otarion clavifrons. 

Following on this decision it is suggested that the rules should be 
suspended so as to permit the continued use of the names Cyphaspis 
and C. burmeisteri instead of their replacement by the hitherto unac- 
cepted names Otarion and O. diffractum. 

Cyphaspis is not a name so widely known and used as, say, Tri- 
nucleus; at the same time only inconvenience can be caused by chang- 
ing it after nearly 80 years. The proposal may, therefore, be submitted 
for the vote of the Commission. 

On basis of the foregoing premises I recommend the Commission 
adopt as its Opinion the following: 

The name of a species is not disqualified merely because the author 
included in his conception bodily parts of more than one species. 
The name of a genus based on such a species is therefore available. 
Otarion diffractum Zenker is valid. Otarion is to be preferred to 
Cyphaspis, and C. burmeisteri Barr. is a synonym of O. diffractum. 

Opinion prepared by Commissioner Bather. 

Opinion concurred in by 14 Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, 
Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, 
Loennberg, Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles, and Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, 2 Commissioners: Dautzenberg and Hoyle. 

Commissioner Stejneger states: “ I object, however, to the inclu- 
sion of the paragraph on page 25 beginning ‘ Another kind of diffi- 
culty,’ etc., as well as the next one ending with the word ‘ unjusti- 
fied.” The very fact that ‘no such plea was raised’ shows that the 
whole argument is at best superfluous. Opinions on cases not specifi- 
cally submitted should be avoided on general principles.” 


20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS Vols 7.2 


The Secretary states: “ It is the understanding that we are voting 
upon the case before us and not upon a principle involving cases not 
actually before the Commission. Accordingly the Secretary’s view 
is that the present opinion does not bind the Commission to the para- 
graph to which Commissioner Stejneger objects. 

“It is the Secretary’s further understanding that this opinion is 
not to be construed as suspension of the rules. The question of possi- 
ble suspension could not be considered until the first question by the 
appellant was definitely answered. With the publication of the an- 
swer it becomes possible for interested authors to present, if they 
desire, application for suspension and arguments supporting their 
proposition, Pending such application the Secretary considers the 
case closed.” 


NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 90 27 


OPINION 89 


SUSPENSION OF THE RULES IN THE CASE OF GRONOW 1763, CoM- 
MERSON 1803, GESELLSCHAFT SCHAUPLATZ 1775 TO 1781, 
CATESBY 1771, BROWNE 1789, VALMONT DE BoMARE 
1768 TO 1775 


S UMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules, in any case where such suspension 

may be considered necessary according to the interpretation now or hereafter 
adopted by the Commission, the following works or papers are declared 
eliminated from consideration as respects their systematic names as of their 
respective dates: Gronow 1763, Commerson 1803, Gesellschaft Schauplatz 1775 
to 1781, Catesby 1771, Browne 1789, Valmont de Bomare 1768 to 1775. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Commissioner David Starr Jordan has sub- 
mitted the case in the following letter to the Secretary: 


There are certain writers in ichthyology who did not accept the Linnaean 
system, usually because they had not heard of it, but whose papers saw the light 
after the date of 1758. There are others whose pre-Linnaean work was 
reprinted with additions. After the date (1758) of the Tenth Edition of the 
Systema Naturae, many of the genera thus proposed were in due time adopted 
by binomial authors and have found their way into the system. Those not so 
fortunate remain as stumbling blocks, some of them extremely annoying, and 
it is the consensus of all the ichthyologists I have consulted that it is very 
desirable in some way to eliminate from consideration all non-binomial authors 
on fishes whose works are printed since 1758. Even more confusing is the 
legalization of the names, non-binomial, quoted by Lacépéde in footnotes but 
not adopted, from the field naturalists, Commerson and Plumier. 

In order definitely to settle the status of certain generic names which in one 
form or another have been at times before the Commission, I propose, on the 
advice of the Secretary to the Commission, that the cases in question as noted 
below be settled by the use of the “ Plenary Power” method on the ground 
that the application of the Rules as interpreted by the opinions and as applied 
to these “binary” but not “binomial” combinations will produce confusion 
rather than uniformity. 

J therefore propose that under Suspension of Rules under Plenary Power, 
the Commission definitely reject the works named below from consideration 
under the Law of Priority. Under this action it is to be understood that no 
generic name proposed as new or reprinted in non-binomial form from or in any 
of the following works shall have nomenclatorial status under the Rules (as 
of the date in question), but that such names shall receive nomenclatorial status 
only through later publication and adoption by some author whose writings, 
under the Rules, are unchallenged. 


28 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


List or Works UNDER CONSIDERATION 


Gronow, 1763, Museum Ichthyologicum [better Zoophylacium*], 1763. 

CoMMERSON, 1803, (as footnotes in Lacépéde Histoire Naturelle des Poissons. 
1803 mostly.) 

GESELLSCHAFT SCHAUPLATZ, 1775 to 1781. An anonymous dictionary accepting 
the pre-Linnaean genera of Klein. 

Catesby, 1771, Natural History of Carolina, Florida and the Bahamas (1731 
to 1750), revised reprint by Edwards (1771). 

BrowNE, 1780, Civil and Natural History of Jamaica, 1766, revised reprint 1780. 

VALMONT DE BoMAre, 1768-75, Dictionnaire Raisonnée Universelle d’Histoire 
Naturelle. Ed. IT. 1768-1775: several names accidentally binomial. 


In support of the foregoing I may report that I have made an exhaustive 
study of the cases in question and | feel certain that the adoption of this rule 
will avoid much regrettable confusion Except the names of Gronow, none of 
the others has yet been brought into general use and two at least of the names 
drawn from Gronow (Amua and Scarus) have proved most unwelcome as dis- 
placing names in almost universal use. 

Gronow himself was an excellent systematist, who adopted the Linnaean 
system as soon as he heard of it. Most of the genera in his “ Museum 
Ichthyologicum” of 1763, had previously appeared in earlier papers and most 
of them also have been stabilized through their adoption in 1777 by 
Scopoli (Introductio), a binomial author, those not preoccupied being now in 
general use. 

A few of the others, revived at one time or another, have been sources of 
great inconvenience to systematists. For which reason, I now recommend that 
the Commission should reject the names of Gronow (accepted under Opinion 
20) but not adopted by subsequent authors, before other names had been 
given to the same groups. 

The unwelcome changes resulting under Opinion 20 are the following: 

Amia Gronow (1763) for Apogon Lacépéde, 1803. This necessitates the 
change of Amia Linnaeus (1766) to Amiatus Rafinesque, 1814. The name Ama 
as applied by Linnaeus is in a way classical, the fish in question being of especial 
interest to anatomists and paleontologists. The name Apogon for a large group 
of fishes is also well established. In any event, I would recommend that A mia 
Gronow be set aside in favor of Amia Linnaeus, even if other names of Gronow 
are allowed. 

Scarus. Scarcely less undesirable is the application of the names Scarus and 
Callyodon of Gronow. Scarus Gronow is a synonym of Labrus Linnaeus 
’ The references given by Commissioner Jordan (cf. also Jordan & Evermann, 
1917a, The Genera of Fishes, pp. 17-22) make it obvious that a slight confusion 
has occurred in the bibliographic citation. 

Gronow’s Museum Ichthyologicum bears the date of 1754 (vol. 1), [and 1756 
(v. 2) not verified by Secretary], and as this is prior to Linnaeus’ Syst. nat., 
roth edition, there would be no object in bringing it to the attention of the 
Commission; the Secretary has thus far been unable to find any later edition. 

Gronow’s Zoophylacium bears the dates: fase. I, 1763; fasc. II, 1764. The 
fishes are given on pp. 27-137, fasc. I, and this is the paper discussed by Jordan & 
Eyvermann in 1917 and in Opinion 20. 


_. 
t 


NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 90 29 


(1758). It antedates and, if accepted, nullifies Scarws Forskal (1775), for one 
of the most important groups of fishes. Callyodon Gronow (1763) in this case 
supersedes Scarus Forskal. It is, however, not identical with Calliodon of 
Cuvier (1829), a name also in general use. (Calliodon Schneider, 1801, is a 
variant spelling of Callyodon, as is also the case with Cuvier’s Calliodon.) 

If Scarus and Callyodon of Gronow are set aside, Scarus Forskal would be 
adopted, Callyodon or Calliodon of later writers becoming a synonym of it. 

Cyclogaster Gronow (1763) was replaced by Liparis Scopoli (1777), the 
latter name being used by nearly all subsequent authors. 

Enchelyopus Gronow (1763) (rejected by Scopoli as a synonym of Blennius 
L.) is equivalent to Zoarces Cuvier, 1817. Euchelyopus (borrowed from 
Klein, 1744) was also used by Schneider (1801) as the equivalent of 
Rhinonemus Gill (1863), and by Agassiz (1844) for a fossil genus of eels 
(Paranguilla Bleeker, 1864). 

Coracinus Gronow (not of Pallas, t811) is equivalent to Dipterodon Cuvier 
(1829), which, however, is preoccupied, and is replaced by Dichistius Gill (1888). 

Hepatus Gronow corresponds to Acanthurus Forskal (1775), and is based on 
the same species as Tenthis Linnaeus, 1766. 

COMMERSON AND PLumiER.—The action of the Commission in the case of 
Gronow will again raise the question partially touched in Opinions 23 and 24. 

In Lacépéde’s Histoire Naturelle des Poissons (1798-1803) a number of 
manuscript names of field workers are mentioned in footnotes. These are 
drawn from notes of one or the other of two active workers, Philibert Com- 
merson, a traveler, and Charles Plumier, a priest stationed on Martinique. 
For both cases the specific names quoted are polynomial, although Commerson, 
at least, had a clear idea of the meaning of genus. Omitting names already 
preoccupied or negligible as synonyms, the following are left as available in 
case of acceptance: 


Alticus Commerson=Rupiscartes Swainson 1830 
Cheloniger Plumier = =Conodon Cuvier 1829 
Chromis Plumier = Umbrina Cuvier 1817 
Enchrasicolus Commerson=Anchoviella Fowler IOII 
Pagrus Plumier =Neomaenis Girard 1859 
Sarda Plumier — Ocyurus Gill 1862 


In case these names are allowed as eligible, the names Pagrus, Sarda, and 
Odax Cuvier must be replaced. Odax Commerson is a synonym of Scarus. 

I propose that the generic names of Commerson and Plumier, not adopted by 
binomial authors, be regarded as ineligible, being (a) not binomial, (b) not 
accepted by the author who published them, and (c) as likely to produce more 
confusion than uniformity. 

The case of Antennarius vs. Histrio, considered in Opinion 24, is not quite 
parallel, as Histrio Fischer, 1813, seems (by tautonomy) not synonymous with 
Antennarius (Commerson) Lacépéde, 1798, and of Cuvier, 1877, but rather 
of Pterophryne Gill, 1863. 

Tue “ GESELLSCHAFT SCHAUPLATZ.’"—I ask the Commission also to consider 
the generic names found in a dictionary entitled “ Neuer Schauplatz der Natur, 
nach den richtigsten Beobachtungen und Versuchen, in alphabetischer Ordnung ; 
Durch eine Gesellschaft der Gelehrten”’: Weidmann, Leipzig: 10 volumes, 1775 
to 1781. 


30 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


The work is anonymous, its compilation being doubtfully ascribed to Philip 
Ludwig Statius Muller, professor at Erlangen. In it all the generic names used 
by Jacob Theodor Klein of Jena in his Historia Piscium Naturalis (1740 to 
1744) are reproduced and accepted, the species still left polynomial in designa- 
tion, the generic diagnoses being rewritten and much condensed. The Schau- 
platz contains also a special list of genera of fishes, comprising all those of 
Linnaeus and of Klein. The objections to the adoption of the genera of the 
Gesellschaft Schauplatz are mainly two: (a) they are published in an anony- 
mous dictionary and (b) as to species the Linnaean Code is not adopted. 

Their rejection is foreshadowed in Opinion 21 by which the genera of 
Klein (1744) as revised and reprinted, but without adoption, by Walbaum 
(1792) are not accepted. They are, however, adopted by Garman (Plagios- 
tomia). 

Their acceptance would necessitate certain changes, mostly unwelcome, in 
current nomenclature, as follows:? 


Brama for Abramis Cuvier 1817 
Cestracion for Sphyrna Rafinesque 1810 
Dasybatus for Dasyatis Rafinesque 1810 


Glaucus for Cacsiomorus Lacépéde 1803 
Labrax for Dicentrarchus Gill 1860 
Leuciscus for Leuciscus Cuvier 1817 
Maenas for Maena Cuvier 1817 


Narcacion for Torpedo Duméril 1806 and 
Narcobatus Blainville 1816 
Pristis for Pristis Linck 1790 
Prochilus for Amphiprion Schneider 1801 
Pseudopterus for Pterois Cuvier 1817 
Rhina for Squatina Duméril 1806 
Rhombus for Bothus Rafinesque 1810 
(Rhombus Cuvier 1817) 
Rhinobatus for Rhinobatus Schneider 
Sargus for Diplodus Rafinesque 1810 
(Sargus Cuvier 1817) 


A new name would be required for Cichla Schneider 1801, Cichla Klein 
being a synonym of Labrus. 

CaTesBy AND BrowNne.—-The generic names of Catesby (1771) and of 
Browne (1789) are apparently ineligible under Opinion 21, which rejects the 
pre-Linnaean generic names of Klein as reprinted with diagnosis in condensed 
form but not adopted by Walbaum in 17092. 

Catespy’s “ NATURAL History oF CAROLINA, FLoRIDA AND THE BAHAMAS” 
(1731-1750) was reprinted in French, German, and English, two editions at 
least, since 1758. The one published by George Edwards in 1771 shows some 
revision, but none which affects nomenclature. Under Opinion 13, the question 
of the eligibility of the Edward’s edition is decided adversely. 

Browne’s “Crvit AND NATurAL History or JAMAICA,” an excellent work, 
was published in 1756 and reprinted with some revision in 1789. There were, 
*See Jordan, Genera of Fishes, part I, pp. 34 and 148, 1917, for a full dis- 
cussion of the matters involved. 


"NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO gO 31 


however, no changes affecting nomenclature. Although his twelve new genera 
in addition to those of Artedi are well founded, I think that they should be 
regarded as ineligible as occurring in a slightly revised post-Linnaean reprint 
in which the Linnaean Code is not adopted. The argument of Opinion 13 
adverse to the acceptance of the names given in the reprint of Catesby applies 
equally to Browne. 

VALMONT DE BomAre.—In his recent monograph of the living sharks 
(Plagiostomia, Cambridge, Mass., 1913) Mr. Samuel Garman has adopted as 
generic names certain appellations in binomial form, found in Valmont’s 
“ Dictionnaire Raisonnée Universelle d’Histoire Naturelle,” in four editions, 
1764-1791. In the first edition the few Latin names are plainly vernaculars. In 
the “ Nouvelle Edition,” 1768, and in “ Edition II” in 1775, a few names, all of 
sharks, assume a distinctly binomial form. It is apparently plain, however, that 
the author regards these as Latin translations of the vernacular, especially as 
in his fourth edition (1791), he gives a list of the genera of fishes, including 
all of those of Linnaeus but adding no names of his own. 

It seems to me a fair ruling that Valmont’s names are binomial only by 
accident, and not accepted as genera by their author. The only new names of 
Valmont * are the following: 


Galeus = Prionace Cantor 1849 
Vulpecula = Alopias Rafinesque 1810 
Catulus (preoccupied) = Scylliorhinus Blainville 1816 
Mustellus = Cynias Gill 1903 


(Not Mustelus of Linck, Leach, Fischer 
or Cuvier, all of these based on 
Squalus mustelus L.) 

Discussion.—Opinion 20, issued by the Commission, has given 
rise to considerable discussion which thus far has not led to definite 
results. Commissioner Jordan has suggested a middle ground which 
will enable the Commission to obtain the results generally desired 
and without respect to the merits or demerits of Opinion 20. Namely, 
he proposes that the Commission declare as nomenclatorially invalid 
the six papers in ichthyology which have produced confusion under 
Opinion 20. 

Commissioner Jordan and the Secretary held prolonged discussion 
on the matter at Leland Stanford University and they concur in the 
wisdom of this move. 

In accordance with the prescribed routine governing Suspension of 
Rules, notice of the consideration of this suspension has been pub- 
lished as follows: 

MONITORE ZOOLOGICO ITALIANO 1922, Anno 33 (N. 12), p. 203. 


Narure, October 14, 1922, p. 523. 
Scrence, December 15, 1922, p. 600. 


* For a further account of Valmont’s work, see Jordan, Genera of Fishes, 
part I, p. 24, 1917. 





32 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 7s 


No protest from any source has been received against the action 
suggested. 

Commissioner Jordan and the Secretary join in recommending that 
under Suspension of the Rules the Commission definitely reject the 
papers named from consideration as respects their systematic names, 
as of their respective dates, under the Law of Priority. 

The effect of the foregoing proposition is to reject as unavailable 
(as of the dates in question) ‘all systematic (chiefly generic) names 
published as new in the foregoing works, but to leave them as avail- 
able as of the dates when they were later adopted by authors whose 
nomenclatorial practice is unquestioned by zoologists. Thus, a modus 
operandi is suggested to solve in a practical way the impasse which 
has existed for about 20 years in the views respecting the use of the 
words “binary” and “binomial”. While neither side concedes 
the principle it supports, both sides unite on another principle, namely, 
that the important end in view is to obtain, not to delay, results, and 
that the “ plenary power,” used judiciously and discreetly, offers us 
a practical method to solve the problems upon which there is such 
conscientious difference of opinion as to interpretation that consensus 
of opinion seems hopeless. 

Opinion prepared by Stiles and Jordan. 

Opinion concurred in by 15 Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, 
Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Hoyle, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), 
Kolbe, Loennberg, Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles, Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, two (three ?) Commissioners: Dabbene, Dautzenberg, 
and ? Hartert. 


Commissioner Bather concurred with the following reservations—“ That the 
Opinion read as follows: 

“Under suspension of the rules in any case where such suspension may be 
considered necessary according to the interpretation now or hereafter adopted 
by the Commission, the following works or papers are declared eliminated, etc., 
ete 

“JT understand from Dr. E. Hartert (letter 20 Feb., 1924) that he and 
Dr. K. Jordan both agree to the above.” 

Commissioner Hartert states that he concurs “with the reservation that 
Opinion 20 must afterwards be revoked!” 

Commissioner K. Jordan states that he concurs “with the proviso that the 
present vote is not taken as prejudicing a possible future vote on the reversal of 
Opinion 20.” 

Commissioner Stejneger concurs “ with the express proviso that the rejection 
of Catesby 1771 does not involve the concordance of the Editor of this edition, 
in which the equivalent Linnaean names are given. This concordance is ap- 
pended to the second volume and has the following title: 


NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO gO 23 


‘A / Catalogue / of the Animals and Plants / represented in Catesby’s 
Natural History of Carolina: / With the Linnaean Names.’ / 

“About the legitimacy of these names there can be no dispute. The editor 
realizing that Catesby’s names—even when consisting of one generic and one 
trivial name only—had no nomenclatorial standing, deliberately and success- 
fully set about to remedy this defect. 

“As I understand the present “ Opinion” its intention is only to eliminate 
the names given by Catesby.” 

REMARKS BY SECRETARY: Commissioner Bather’s suggestion in- 
volves only editorial revision and has been complied with. 

As respects Commissioner Hartert’s reservation, Opinion 20 is 
not before the Commission in this vote. As he does not specifically 
vote against the Opinion, his name is carried with a ? both under the 
concurring and the not voting Commissioners. In either case this 
does not influence the ultimate result. 

Commissioner Stejneger’s reservation is interpreted by the Secre- 
tary as limiting the unanimous vote of the Commission in the case of 
Catesby 1771 so that the suspension does not include the concordance. 


34 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


OPINION 90 


REPORT ON SIXTEEN GENERIC NAMES OF MAMMALS FOR WHICH 
SUSPENSION OF RuLES Was REQUESTED 


SUMMARY.—None of the sixteen names receives a unanimous vote for sus- 
pension; accordingly, the Commission is not empowered to suspend the Rules 
for these cases. Six names (namely: Cercopithecus, Gazella, Hippotragus, 
Lagidium, Nycteris, and Manatus) receive two-thirds majority or more for 
suspension, and are, therefore, to be referred for final decision to a special 
committee of three to be appointed by the President of the section on 
nomenclature of the next international congress. Ten names (namely: Echidna, 
Anthropopithecus, Coclogenys, Chiromys, Dasypus, Dictotyles, Galeopithecus, 
Hapale, Rhytina, and Sinia) fail to receive a two-thirds majority vote for sus- 
pension, and therefore the Law of Priority is to be applied in these cases. 


STATEMENT OF CASE,—Suspension of the rules by exercise of the 
Plenary Power, accorded to the Commission by the International 
Zoological Congress held at Monaco, was requested by seven special- 
ists in mammalogy (nanmtely: Knud Anderson, Angel Cabrera, Einar 
Loennberg, R. Lydekker, Paul Matschie, Oldfield Thomas, and L. L. 
Trouessart) for the following generic names: 


Cercopithecus Brunnich, 1772, 34. 

Gazella Blainville, 1816, 75. 

Hippotragus Sundevall, 1846 (for 1844), 916. 

Lagidium Meyen, 1833, 570. 

. Nycteris Cuv. & Geof., 1795, 186, or Geoffroy, 1803, 64. 

. Echidna G. Cuvier, 1798, 143 (nec Echidna Forster, 1777, 181; or 1778, 31; 

or 1788, 81). 
Anthropopithecus Blainville, 1838, 360. 
Coeclogenys. Emended and commonly used form of Coelogenus F. Cuvier, 
1807, 203; Coelogenys Illiger, 1811, 92. 

9. Chiromys. Emended and commonly used form of Cheiromys G. Cuvier, 
1800, Tabl. 1 (not Chieromys as stated by Palmer), Chiromys Illiger, 
1811, 75. 

10. Dasypus Linn., 1758a, 50. 

11. Dicotyles G. Cuvier, 1817, 237. 

12. Galeopithecus Pallas, 1780, 208. 

13. Hapale Illiger, 1811, 71. 

14. Rhytina emended form of Rytina Illiger, 1811, 141. Rhytina Gloger, 1841, 
165. 

15. Simia Linn., 1758a, 25. 

16. Manatus Briinnich, 1772, 34, 38. 


Gwen aes NF 


om 


The cases in question were published in Science, n. s., v. 40, 
pp. 66-67, July 10, 1914; Bull. Soc. Zool. France, v. 39, 247-250, 
July 25, 1914; Monitore Zool. Ital., anno 25, 174-179; and in 


NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 9O 35 


Zool. Ang., v. 44, pp. 630-632, July 28, 1914. Accordingly, the 
conditions required respecting public notification of the zoologi- 
cal profession have been complied with. Further, the names were 
sent out by the Secretary in Circular Letter No. 3, April 1915, 
to about 350 zoologists and zoological institutions. Up to August 14, 
1915, 66 replies were received to Circular Letter No. 3. The views 
expressed were tabulated and submitted to the Secretary of the 
Advisory Committee on Nomenclature of Mammals (Aug. 14, 1915, 
Circular Letter No. 12). This Advisory Committee appeared to be 
so divided in its views as to the advisability of suspension of rules 
that the entire matter was submitted to the Commission by the Secre- 
tary of the International Commission (September, 1916, Circular 
Letter No. 31) with recommendation that the case be tabled, without 
prejudice, until March 1, 1917, in order to give interested persons 
an opportunity to complete the evidence. Of eight votes returned in 
reply to this recommendation, six were affirmative and two were in 
favor of accepting the names. 

New briefs were submitted by Mr. Oldfield Thomas in the name 
of the signers of the original papers asking suspension. The Advisory 
Committee on Mammalian Nomenclature was so hopelessly divided 
in regard to these cases that it was useless to submit to said Commit- 
tee these new presentations by Oldfield Thomas. Accordingly these 
new briefs with all the earlier documents were forwarded by the 
Secretary to Commissioner Allen (since, deceased) for study and 
report. 

The documents in respect to these cases are voluminous and in 
view of present cost of printing the Secretary does not feel justified 
in requesting the Smithsonian Institution to publish them. 

The correspondence on the cases conducted by the Secretary with 
the Commissioners, with the appellants and others, covers a period 
of If years and no good purpose would be served by abstracting it 
for publication. 

Discusstion.—Commissioner Allen studied the cases and his report 
was submitted to the Commission. Summaries of the names are tabu- 
lated as follows: 

Group A. Suspension Recommended Favorably by Commissioner 
Allen: (1) Cercopithecus, (2) Gazella, (3) Hippotragus, (4) Lagid- 
tum, (5) Nycteris. 

(1) Cercopithecus. Application of Name Advocated by Appellants. To the 
Guenon Monkeys, from Briinnich, Zoologiae Fundamenta, p. 34, 1772, with 
C. mona (Simia mona Schreb.) as genotype. 


Asserted Code Application—To the Tamarin Marmosets, from Gronow, 
Zoophylacium, p. 5, 1763, with Simia midas Linn. as genotype. [See Opinion 8o.] 


30 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


(2) Gazella. Application of Name Advocated by Appellants. Gazella, as 
from Blainville, Bull. Soc. Philom. Paris, 1816, p. 75, to be applied to Gazelles, 
with genotype (fixed by Ogilby, P. Z. S. 1836, p. 137) :—Capra dorcas Linn., 
Syst. Nat., p. 69, 1758a, the common N. African Gazelle. 

Possible Code Application—To Gemsbok (Genus Oryx). 

(3) Hippotragus. Application of Name Advocated by Appellants.—Hippo- 
tragus Sundevall, K. Vte. Ak. Handl. (for 1844), p. 196, 1846. 

Genotype.—Antilope leucophaca Pallas, Misc. Zool., p. 4, 1766. 

Code-Names.—Egocerus Desm., Mamm., v. 2, p. 475, 1822 (nec AZgoceros. 
Pallas, Zoog. Ross.-As. i, p. 224, 1811). Same genotype, or Ozanna Reichenb., 
Vollst. Nat. Saug., v. 3, p. 126, 1845. Genotype Antilope niger Harris, P. Z. S., 
1838, p. 2. 

Synonyms.—None beyond those above, though many variants of Egocerus 
have been used, including A?goceros, identical in spelling with the name for 
the Wild Sheep given by Pallas. 

(4) Lagidium. Application of Name Advocated by Appellants—Lagidium 
Meyen, N. Act. Leop., v. 16 (2), p. 576, 1833. 

Genotype.—Lagidium peruanum Meyen, l. c. 

Code-Name.—V iscaccia Oken, Lehrb. Nat., v. 3, Zool., 2, p. 835, 1816. Geno- 
type “ Lepus chilensis Molina.” 

Synonyms.—Callomys d’Orb. and Geof., Ann. Sci. Nat. Paris, v. 21, pp. 282, 
280, 1830; Lagotis Bennett, 1833, nec Blainville, 1817. 

(5) Nycteris. Application of Name Advocated by Appellants—Nycteris 
Cuv. & Geof., Method Mam., in Mag. Ency., 1795, 66, or Geoffroy, Cat. Mamm. 
Mus. Nat. Hist., p. 64, 1803, to be used for the Old World bats so known. 

Genotype.—Vespertilio hispidus Schreber, Saug., v. 1, p. 160, 1774 (fide Sher- 
borne) or 1775. Type locality Senegal. 

Code-Name.—Petalia Gray, Mag. Zool. Bot., v. 2, p. 494, 1838. Genotype 
Nycteris javanica Geoffroy. 

Synonyms.—Nycterops Gray, P. Z. S. 1866, p. 83; genotype N. pilosa Gray; 
Pelatia Gray, P. Z. S. 1866, p. 83, genotype N. javanica Geoffroy. 


Group B. Report Adverse for Suspension by Commissioner Allen 
for Mammalogy and Commissioner David Starr Jordan for Ichthy- 
ology: (6) Echidna. 


(6) Echidna. Name Advocated by Appellants—Echidna G. Cuvier, Tabl. 
Elem., p. 143, 1708. Preoccupied by Echidna Forster, 1777, Icones, 181, fish. 
Genotype—Myrmecophaga aculeata Shaw, Nat. Misc., v. 3, pl. 109, 1702. 

Type locality New South Wales. 

Code-Name.—Tachyglossus Iliger, Prodr. Syst. Mamm., p. 114, 1811. Same 
genotype. 

Synonym.—Echinopus G. Fischer, Zoognosia, v. 3, p. 691, 1814. Same geno- 
type. 

Group C. Report by Allen Adverse for Suspension in the Follow- 
ing Ten Cases: (7) Anthropopithecus, (8) Coelogenus, (9) Chiro- 
mys, (10) Dasypus, (11) Dicotyles, (12) Galeopithecus, (13) Hap- 
ale, (14) Rytina, and (15) Sina. 


NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 9O a7 


(7) Anthropopithecus. Name Advocated by Appellants—Anthropopithecus 
Blainville, Ann. Fr. d’Anat. Phys., v. 2, p. 360, 1838. 

Genotype.—Simia troglodytes Gmel., Linn. S. N., v. 1, p. 26, 1788. 

Code-Name.—Pan Oken, Lehrb. Naturg., v. 3 (2), p. 1230, 1816. Same 
genotype. : 

Synonyms.—Troglodytes Geoff., 1812 (nec Vieillot, 1806) ; Mimetes Leach, 
1820; Theranthropus Brookes, 1828; Hylanthropus Gloger, 1841; Pseudan- 
thropos Reichenbach, 1860; Engeco Haeckel, 1866; Pongo Haeckel, 1866. All 
with same genotype. 

(8) Coelogenys. Name Advocated by Appellants.—Coelogenys. Emended 
and commonly used form of Coelogenus F. Cuvier, Ann. Mus. Paris, v. 10, p. 
203, 1807; Coelogenys Illiger, Prodr. Syst. Mamm., p. 92, 1811. 

Genotype.—‘“ Cavia paca Linn.” (Mus paca Linn., Syst. Nat., 12 ed., 1, p. 81, 
17606. 

Code-Names.—C uniculus Brisson, Regn. Anim., 2d ed., p. 13, 95, 98, 1762. 
Same genotype (as selected by Hollister, P. Biol. Soc. Wash., v. 26, p. 79, 1913). 

But certain authors do not accept Brissonian names, and for these the Code- 
name is Agouti Lacépede, Tableau p. 9, 17909. Same genotype. 

Synonyms.—Paca G. Fisch., Zoognosia, v. 3, p. 85, 1814; Osteopera Harlan, 
Faun. Amer., p. 126, 1825. Other synonyms of the genus are all modifications 
of the word Coelogenys. 

(9) Chiromys. Name Advocated by Appellants.—Chiromys. Emended and 
commonly used form of Cheiromys G. Cuvier, Lecons Anat. Comp. tf. tabl. 1. 
1800. (Not Chieromys as stated by Palmer.) Chiromys Illiger, Prodr. Syst. 
Mamm., p. 75, 1811. 

Genotype.—Sciurus madagascariensis Gmelin, in Linn., Syst. Nat., v. I, p. 152, 
1788. Type locality Madagascar. 

Code-Name.—Daubentonia E. Geoffroy, Dec. Phil. Lit., v. 4, p. 105, 1795. 
Same genotype. 

Synonyms.—Scolecophagus E. Geoffroy, 17905; Aye-Aye Lacépéde, 1790; 
Myspithecus Blainville, 1839; Mysiemur Blainville, 1846. All with same 
genotype. 

(10) Dasypus. Application Advocated by Appellants——Dasypus Linn. s. n., 
p. 50, 1758a, to be applied to the Six-Banded Armadillo and its allies, with 
genotype D. sexcinctus Linn., 1758a, p. 51. 

Code Application —Dasypus for the Tatous, with genotype D. novemcinctus, 
id) 15-c: 

Synonyms.—For the sexcinctus group, Euphractus Wagl., 1830. For the 
Tatous—Tatu Blumenb., 1779; Tatusia Less., 1827; Praopus Burm., 1854. 

(11) Dicotyles. Name and Genotype Advocated by Appellants.—Dicotyles 
G. Cuv., Régne Anim., p. 237, 1817, with genotype Dicotyles torquatus G. 
Cuvier 1. c. (Sus tajacu Linn.) the Collared Peccary, and Tayassu G. Fisch., 

' Zoognosia, v. 3, p. 284, 1814, with genotype Tayassu pecari Fisch., t. ¢., p. 285, 
1814. The White-lipped Peccary. 

(12) Galeopithecus. Name Advocated by Appellants.—Galeopithecus Pallas, 
Act. Ac. Petrop., p. 208, 1780. 

Genotype.—Lemur volans Linn., from Luzon. 

Code-Name.—Cynocephalus Bodd., Dierkundig Mengelwork, v. 2, p. 8, 1768. 
Same genotype. 

Synonyms.—Galeopus Raf., 1815; Dermopterus and Pleuropterus Burnett, 
1829; Colugo Gray, 1870. All with same genotype. 


38 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. -73 


(13) Hapale. Name Advocated by Appellants.—Hapale Illiger, Prodr. Syst. 
Mamm., p. 71, 1811. Genotype Simia jacchus Linn. 

Code-Name.—Callithrix Erxleben, Syst. Regn. An., p. 55, 1777. Same 
genotype. 

Synonyms.—Sagoinus Kerr, 1792; Sagouin Lacépéde, 1799; Jacchus E. 
Geoffroy, 1812. All with the same genotype. 

(14) Rhytina. Name Advocated by Appellants—Rhytina emended form of 
Rytina Illiger, Prodr. Syst. Mamm., p. 141, 1811. Rhytina Gloger, Naturg. p. 
165, 1841. 

Genotype.—Trichechus manatus borealis Gmel., Linn. Syst. Nat., p. 60, 1788. 
~ Code-Name.—Hydrodamalis Retzius, K. Vet. Acad. Handl., 1794, p. 202; 
Manati Zimm., Geogr. Gesch., v. 2, p. 426, 1780. Same genotype. 

Synonyms.—Sirene Link, 1794 (type borealis) ; Nepus G. Fisch., 1814 (type 
stellert) ; Stellera Bow., 1821 (type Trichechus manatus borealis) ; Haligyna 
Pillb., 1828. 

(15) Simia satyrus Linn., 1758a, 25. Application Advocated by Appellants.— 
Simia satyrus to the Orang Utan, whose Code-name is said to be Pongo, 
instead of— 

Code-Application. To the Barbary Ape (Macaca sylvana). 

Group D.—Report Advérse for Suspension by Commissioner Allen, Favorable 
for suspension by Secretary. (16) Manatus. 

(16) Manatus. Name Advocated by Appellants—Manatus Briinnich, 
Zoologiae Fundamenta, p. 34, 38, 1772. Type Trichechus manatus Linn., Syst. 
Nat. p. 34, 1758a. Type locality West Indies. 

Code-Name.—Trichechus Linn., Syst. Nat., p. 34, 1758a. Same genotype. 

Synonyms. Oxrystomus G. Fisch., 1803; Halipaedisea Gistel, 1848. Same 
genotype. 


For the present, no good purpose can be served by publication of 
the arguments for and against suspension. 

In view of the importance of the cases and the great diversity of 
opinion, the Secretary has considered it essential to obtain a total of 
18 votes in the case of each one of the names. The realization of this 
policy has been exceedingly difficult because of the World War and 
the extensive amount of data under consideration. After about I1 
years the Secretary is now able to present 18 votes on each case; but 
as some of the Commissioners refrained from voting on individual 
cases it has been necessary to supplement the first 18 voting sheets 
returned by counting in the vote of a ninteenth Commissioner, Neveu- 
Lemaire, in seven instances, in order to make up a total of 18 votes. 


If the parliamentary point be raised that the Secretary’s policy in . 


this respect is open to objection, the reply is that if Commissioner 
Neveu-Lemaire’s vote be omitted from consideration the ultimate 
result is not affected. 

The final results of the vote are as follows: 

Ist, no name in the list receives a unanimous vote for suspension ; 
accordingly the Commission is without power to suspend the Rules 
in these cases. 3 


NO. 3 OPINIONS 82 TO 90 39 


and, the following names receive a two-thirds majority or more in 
favor of suspension: Cercopithecus, Gazella, Hippotragus, Lagidium, 
Nycteris, and Manatus. Accordingly, persuant to the Plenary Power 
provisions (see Proceedings gth International Zoological Congress, 
Monaco (1913) 1914, pp. 890-891, §114; reprinted also p. 40, Opin- 
ion 76) it becomes incumbent upon the Secretary to report these six 
names for final action to the section on nomenclature of the next 
international zoological congress. 

§114 reads as follows: 

Resolved, That in the event that a case reaches the Congress, as hereinbefore 
described, with two-thirds majority of the Commission in favor of suspension, 
but without unanimous report, it shall be the duty of the President of the 
section on nomenclature to select a special board of 3 members, consisting of 
one member of.the Commission who voted on each side of the question and 
one ex-member of the Commission who has not expressed any public opinion 
on the case; and this special board shall review the evidence presented to it, 
and its report, either majority or unanimous, shall be final and without appeal, 
so far as the Congress is concerned. 

3d, the following ten names fail to receive a two-thirds vote in 
favor of suspension and therefore it becomes incumbent upon the 
Secretary to report that suspension is not authorized for them 
and that the Rules are to be applied to them: Echidna, Anthropo- 
pithecus, Coelogenys, Chiromys, Dasypus, Dicotyles, Galeopithecus, 
Hapale, Rhytina, and Simia. 

In order that zoologists interested in these cases may know the 
exact status of the votes, these are appended in tabular form. + signi-_ 
fies favorable to suspension, o unfavorable to suspension, and ? not 
voting. 

Report prepared by Secretary. 


Note by Secretary: During the final proof-reading of this Opinion, 
based on the report by Commissioner Allen, additional data have 
been obtained by the Secretary which persuade him that it is by 
no means clear, under the Rules, that (1) Cercopithecus should be 
transferred to the Tarmarin Marmosets, or that (15) Sima should 
be transferred to the Barbary Ape. The premises appear to be in- 
complete and the cases require careful restudy before these changes 
are adopted. 





40 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL /3 
















































































use [ Rte t tet t tte he est 
sus | t+ttttoeooo0oo0o 0c oF 
re8aula1e i 46 GVA Gre loneene one lenene 
iquitge | 06 0 66 SiO lenOnenS Gnemonene 
teers yee (eee + 
IJSOTIIO PY |) tah palpi ag ates ake Sn ln Tc alae 
Byoquiaue |) i ae eee ree 
SG) s | ee eee ae ee ea eae 

e “yy ‘uepso f a2 oe SaaS 66 oole Cu Cro Roma. 
+g -q ‘uepaof Anes ae ee Solel olonc rom 
foul) Prema ae oo ee ee ee ema 
weap | +++ ++0++00+4+0044 

3 qourg| +++ ++00000000000 
eo ee eee ee eS 

suoqueG (Poole: Ge Lou Gno obo once ono 

meg: | eae me SOE ee eae eee 
dioysdy | 4 eee GE elon ae cee eres 
spepueutry |: 2p ee Oe he eae seem 
Guy | ods ee ouers arcu eens 

2 ysuesy)| & PAN TANDCADADNDH ADO WH 
: weal 2s CO TELCWDAIGARC OARS 

SiN oe ce amailea ae 

SoS 8 fo yk See S 

Sie Seg Se one ee ee 

PES SSS ESS eae See 

Cy CS Ne Cm Ss Sea es 

Ho SE PAE ESO0 SOMO gay Cae 








SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 


VOLUME 73, NUMBER 4 





|| OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 


7. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
| | NOMENCLATURE 
| OPINIONS 91 TO 97 





(PUBLICATION 2873) 


= 


= 352 


CITY OF WASHINGTON 
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 
OCTOBER 8, 1926 








SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 
VOLUME 73, NUMBER 4 


OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


OPINIONS 91 TO 97 






APRA INCp, eS 
oot IEF Vinee s RS 
i SEDGE NO Ore 

fall YN > Se 





@, 
%e 















(PUBLICATION 2873) 


CITY OF WASHINGTON 
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 
OCTOBER 8, 1926 











: The Lord Waftimore Press 


7 ‘ BALTIMORE, MD., U. S. A. 








OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


OPINIONS 91 TO 97 


OPINION 91 


THIRTY-FIVE GENERIC NAMES OF MAMMALS PLACED IN THE - 
OFFICIAL LIst OF GENERIC NAMES 


SUMMARY.—The following names are hereby placed in the Official List of 
Names: Alces, Arvicola, Ateles, Bison, Bradypus, Canis, Capra, Cebus, Cer- 
vus, Cholocpus, Condylura, Cricetus, Crocidura, Cystophora, Dasyprocta, 
Didelphis, Erethizon, Felis, Gulo, Halichoerus, Lepus, Lynx, Mus, Myrme- 
cophaga, Nasua, Ovibos, Phyllostomus, Procyon, Putorius, Rangifer, Khino- 
lophus, Rupicapra, Sciurus, Sorex, Vespertilio. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Commissioner Apstein (1915a, pp. 198- 
202) has proposed the following generic names of mammals as nomina 
conservanda : 


Alces Gray, 1821, 307, tat. Cervus alces Linn., 1758a, 66. 
Arvicola Lac., 1799, 10, type Mus amphibius Linn., 1758a, 61. 
Ateles Geoffr., 1805, 262, type Simia paniscus Linn., 1758a, 20. 
Bison Smith, H., 1827, 373, tat. Bos bison Linn., 1758a, 72. 
Bradypus Linn., 1758a, 34, type B. tridactylus Linn., 1758a, 34. 
Canis Linn., 1758a, 38, type C. famtliarts Linn., 1758a, 38. 

Capra Linn., 1758a, €8, type C. hircus Linn., 1758a, 68. 

Cebus Erxl., 1777, 44, type Simia capucina Linn., 1758a, 20. 
Cervus Linn., 1758a, 66, type C. elaphus Linn., 1758a, 67. 
Choloepus Ill., 1811, 108, type Bradypus didactylus Linn., 1758a, 35. 
Condylura Ill., 1811, 125, type Sorex cristatus Linn., 1758a, 53. 
Cricetus Leske, 1779, 168, tat. Mus cricetus Linn., 1758a, 60. 
Crocidura Wagl., 1832, 275, type Sorex leucodon Herm., 1780, 382. 
Cystophora Nills., 1820, 382, type Phoca cristata Erxl., 1777, 590. 
Dasyprocta Ill., 1811, 93, type Mus aguti Linn., 1766, 80. 
Didelphis Linn., 1758a, 54, type D. marsupialis Linn., 1758a, 54. 
Erethizon Cuv., 1822, 432, type Hystrix dorsata Linn., 1758a, 57. 
Felis Linn., 1758a, 41, type /. catus Linn., 1758a, 42. 

Gulo Pallas, 1780, 25, tat. Mustela gulo Linn., 1758a, 45. 
Halichocrus Nilb., 1820, 376, type Phoca grypus Vabr., 1791, 167. 
Lepus Linn., 1758a, 57, type L. timidus Linn., 1758a, 57. 


SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS, VOL. 73. No.4 


Z SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Lina Kerr, 1792, 32, tat. Felis tyne Tainn., 1758a, 43. 

Mus Linn., 1758a, 59, type M. musculus Linn., 1758a, 62. 

Myrmecophaga Linn., 1758a, 35, type M. tridactyla Linn., 1758a, 35. 

Nasua Storr, 1780, 35, tat. Viverra nasua Linn., 1766, 64. 

Ovibos Blainv., 1816, 76, type Bos moschatus Zimm., 1780, 86. 

Phyllostomus Lac., 1790, 16, type Vespertilio hastatus Pall., 1767, 7. 

Procyon Storr, 1780, 35, type Ursus lotor Linn., 1758a, 48. 

Putorius Cuv., 1817, 147, tat. Mustela putorius Linn., 1758a, 46. 

Rangifer Smith, H., 1827, 304, type Cervus tarandus Linn., 1758a, 67. 

Rhinolophus Lac., 1799, 15, type Vespertilio ferrum-equinum Schreb., 1774, 
174, pl. 62. 

Rupicapra Blainv., 1816, 75, tat. Capra rupicapra Linn., 1758a, 68. 

Sciurus Linn., 1758a, 63, type S. vulgaris Linn., 1758a, 63. 

Sorex Linn., 1758a, 53, type S. araneus Linn., 1758a, 53. 

Vespertilio Linn., 1758a, 31, type V. murinus Linn., 1758a, 32. 


Discussion.—Dr. G. S. Miller, of the United States National 
Museum, has studied these names from the standpoint.of the Inter- 
national Rules and he reports that in his opinion they are available 
and valid under the rules. Accordingly, it is not necessary to adopt 
them as “nomina conservanda’”’ under suspension of the rules, but 
they appear to be eligible for the official list in their own right. 

The names have been published in several scientific journals for the 
information of zoologists and no objection of any kind has been re- 
ceived by the Secretary to these names. 

In view of the foregoing data, the Secretary recommends that the 
35 names in question be placed in the Official List of Gencric Names. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Jordan, D. S., Jordan, K., 
Kolbe, Loennberg, Monticelli, Skinner, Stiles, Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, four (4) Commissioners: Dabbene, Dautzenberg, 
Hoyle, Stejneger. 


‘ 





NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 a 


OPINION 92 


SIXTEEN GENERIC NAMES oF Pisces, AMPHIBIA, AND REPTILIA 
PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL List oF GENERIC NAMES 


SUMMARY .—The following names are hereby placed in the Official List of 
Generic Names: Pisces: Blennius, Echeneis, Esox, Ophidion. AMPHIBIA: 
Cryptobranchus, Desmognathus, Siren. Rerricia: Alligator, Calamaria, 
Chelydra, Crotalus, Dermochelys, Eremias, Lacerta, Mabuya, Phrynosoma. 


STATEMENT OF CASE—-Commissioner Apstein (1915a, pp. I9g0- 

19QI5a, pp. 19 
192) has proposed the adoption of the following generic names of 
Pisces, Amphibia, and Reptilia, as “ nomina conservanda.”’ 


Pisces 
Blennius Linn., 1758a, 256, type B. ocellaris Linn., 1758a, 256. 
Echenets Linn., 1758a, 260, type E. nawcrates Linn., 1758a, 261. 
FEsox Linn., 1758a, 313, type E. lucius Linn., 1758a, 314. 
Ophidion Linn., 1758a, 250, type O. barbatuim Linn., 1758a, 250. 


AMPHIBIA 
Cryptobranchus | euck., 1821, 250, mt. Salamandra gigantea Barton = allegani- 
ensis Daud., 1803, 231 = alleyhaniensis Harlan, 1825, 233. 
Desmognathus Baird, 1849, 282, type Triturus fuscus Raf., 1820, 4. 
Siren Linn., 1765, addenda, mt. S. lacertina Linn., 1706, addenda. 


REPTILIA 
Alligator Cuv., 1807, 25, type Crocodilus mississipiensis Daud., 1803, v. 2, 412. 
Calamaria Boie, 1827, 236, tat. Coluber calamaria Linn., 1758a, 2106. 
Chelydra Schweigg., 1812, 292, mt. Testudo serpentina Linn., 1758a, 199. 
Crotalus Linn., 1758a, 214, type C. horridus Linn., 1758a, 214. 
Dermochelys Blainv., 1816, 110, type Testudo coriacea Linn., 1766, 350. 
Eremias Wiegm., 1834, 9, type Lacerta velox Pall., 1771, 457. 
Lacerta Linn., 1758a, 200, type L. agilis Linn., 1758a, 203. 
Mabuya Fitz., 1826, 23, type Scincus sloanit Daud., 1803, v. 4, 287. 
Phrynosonva Wiegm., 1828, 367, type Lacerta orbiculare Linn., 1758a, 206. 


Discussion.—The 4 names of fishes have been studied by Com- 
missioner David Starr Jordan from the standpoint of the Interna- 
tional Rules, and he reports that they are valid under the rules. 

The 3 names of Amphibia and the 9 names of Reptilia have re- 
cently been studied by Commissioner Stejneger from the standpoint 
of the International Rules and he reports that they are valid under 
the rules. 


4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


The names of the Amphibia have also been studied by Dr. Arthur 
E. Brown (Proceedings Academy Natural Science, Philadelphia, 
1908) and he adopts them. 

All of these names have been published in certain zoological 
journals for the information of zoologists, and in order to give mem- 
bers of the profession the opportunity to express their opinion for or 
against them. Not a single objection to any one of these names has 
reached the Secretary’s office. 

In view of the foregoing premises the Secretary recommends that 
the names in question, with types cited, be placed in the Official List 
of Generic Names. 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by ten (10) Commissioners: Apstein, Hor- 
vath, Jordan, D. S., Jordan, K., Kolbe, Loennberg, Monticelli, Skin- 
ner, Stiles, Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, seven (7) Commissioners: Bather, Dabbene, Dautzen- 
berg, Handlirsch, Hartert, Hoyle, Stejneger. 


Li, 





NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 5 


OPINION 93 


TWELVE GENERIC NAMES OF FISHES PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL 
LIST, BY SUSPENSION OF THE RULES 


SUMMARY .—The following 12 generic names of fishes are herewith placed 
in the Official List of Generic Names, under the Plenary Power for Suspen- 
sion of the Rules: Conger Cuv., 1817 (Muraena conger L.); Coregonus Linn., 
1758 (Salmo lavaretus L.); Eleotris Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (gyrinus Cuv. 
& Val.); Epinephelus Bloch, 1792 (marginalis Bloch) ; Gymnothorax Bloch, 
1795 (reticularis Bloch); Malapterurus Lacépéde, 1803 (Silurus electricus 
L.); Mustelus Linck, 1790 (Squalus mustelus L. [=Mustelus laevis]) ; 
Polynemus Linn., 1758 (paradisaeus L.); Sciaena Linn., 1758 (wmbra L.= 
Cheilodipterus aquila Lacép. as restr. by Cuvier, 1815) ; Serranus Cuv. (Perca 
cabrilla L.); Stolephorus Lacép., 1803 (commersonianus Lacép.); Teuthis 
Linn., 1766 (javus L.). 

Names now current are not to be discarded unless the reasons for change 





show a clear-cut necessity. 


STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION OF CASE.—The following cases are 
submitted and discussed by Commissioner David Starr Jordan, The 
U. S. Bureau of Fisheries (signature H. F. Moore, Acting Commis- 
sioner) concurs in the recommendations regarding them. 

It seems to me that a legitimate use of the plenary power will be to 
cast it on the side of names now current unless the reason for change 
is a clear-cut necessity, priority of actual date for example. But in 
cases where a reasonable argument on both sides exists, it seems 
better to give current nomenclature the preference. 

The earlier writers had no conception of genotype, regarding a 
genus merely as a convenient pigeon-hole in which to stow species, to 
be more or less arbitrarily divided when the receptacle became too full 
or its contents too obviously incongruous. In applying the rule of the 
first reviser, we find many difficulties as every taxonomist knows. 
Often a name has been dislocated by application to a species unknown 
to the original author. Often a wiser or more characteristic choice 
could have been made; still more often a writer mentions a given 
species not as a type, but rather as an illustration. And it is a rare 
case where a designated type among the early authors can be “ rigidly 
construed ” as indicated in accepted rules. 

I now ask the Commission to consider stabilizing current nomen- 
clature in a number of genera of fishes, in which the pertinence of 
current nomenclature has been questioned, for reasons more or less 
plausible, but in no case beyond question. 


6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


I propose that, subject to possible new information, the following 
current generic names be provisionally legalized with the type species 
indicated, notwithstanding certain contrary arguments of greater or 
less validity, but in no case clear-cut and conclusive. 


Agetosatus Blainville, 1816: type Raja narinart Euphracen. 


The name Aéctobatus was applied by Blainville to the Eagle Rays, of which 
Raja aquila L. = Aétobatus vulgaris Blainville would be the natural type. But 
as the genus Myliobatis (Duméril) Cuvier, 1817, had been established also for 
the Eagle Rays, the first reviser, Muller & Henle adopted both names, assigning 
R. aquila to Myliobatis and an unwonted type, FP. narinari to Aétobatus. From 
this arrangement Cantor (1849) dissented making Mvyliobatis a synonym of 
Aétobatus and giving a new name, Stoasodon to R. narinart. It will create 
less confusion, however, to let the first revision stand, accepting R. narinari 
as type of Aétobatus. 


CoNGER Cuvier, 1817: type Muraena conger L. 

The name Leptocephalus was given by Gronow, a non-binomial author, in 
1763 to a translucent ribbon-like larva, now shown to be that of the Conger 
Eel. In binomial nomenclature, this name dates from its adoption by Scopolt 
in 1777. The name Conger, used by Houttuyn in 1764, is said not to be available, 
although noted as such in Jordan, Genera of Fishes, p. 22. 

As Leptocephalus and its derivatives have been in use for more than a 
century as the designation of these peculiar larvae I recommend that this use 
be continued and that the generic name of the Conger eels be established as 
Conger, in accordance with current usage. 

[Apstein, 1915a, 187: Conger Cuv., 1817, type vulgaris Richards, 1844.] 


Coreconus Linnaeus, 1758: type Salmo lavaretus L. 


The generic name Coregonus, taken from Artedi, is given by Linnaeus in the 
plural form only as Coregoni. The sub-generic names Truttae (Salmo trutta), 
Osmerus (Salmo eperlanus) and Characinus (Salmo gibbosus) appear in the 
same fashion as plurals. To reject these names in almost universal use, to 
substitute some possible later synonym would be a source of needless confusion. 
I recommend that these plural nouns be maintained as valid. 

[Apstein, 1915a, 187: Coregonus Cuv., 1817, type wartmanni BI., 1784.] 


ExLeotris Bloch and Schneider, 1801: type Eleotris gyrinus Cuv. & Val. 

The generic name Eleotris first appears in Gronow, Zoophylaceum p. 183, 
1763, with a good description and three species polynomially named, the name 
Eleotris being especially associated with a Chinese species, Gobius eleotris L., 
Gobius chinensis Osbeck. The other, apparently a true “ /leotris’’ was named 
Gobius pisonis by Gmelin (1789), and Gobius amorea by Walbaum (1792). 

The first binomial author to revive the name Eleotris is Schneider in his 
edition of Bloch. The genus is here nominally equivalent to Gobius, the ventral 
fins being described as “ connexae,’ a statement true of some of the species 
named but not of the Eleotris of Gronow. No species belonging to the genus 
Eleotris as now understood is included, though reference is made to Eleotris 
pisonis as a “ species non definienda.”’ 


‘ 





( 
é 
4 


o 


NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 7. 


Meanwhile the Amore Piruma of Marcerave’s pre-Linnaean Historia Natur- 
alis Brasiliae edited by Dr. Wilhelm Piso is brought into the synonymy. This 
is a crude figure of some small goby with two dorsal fins, perhaps an Eleotris, 
but not the actual type of any specific name. 

In 1800, Lacépéde established a genus Gobiomoroides on a dried fish ‘sent 
by Holland to France,” which he identified as Gobius pisonis, naming it Gobio- 
moroides piso. It could, however, not be either Elcotris pisonts or “ Amore 
pixuma’”’ as it had a single dorsal of 45 rays and canine teeth. It was probably 
not a goby, and the name cannot be used for Eleotris. 

Eleotris 1.ext appears with Cuvier (Réegne Animal 1, 257, 1817) who accepts 
the name from Gronow, and gives a correct definition. His types are specimens 
from Levaillant taken in Surinam. The species described by Cuvier and Valen- 
ciennes as Eleotris gyrinus later authors have generally regarded as the type 
of Eleotris. It is identified by Jordan & Evermann with Gobius pisonis Gmelin, 

We have apparently two alternatives in case Gronow’s names, “ binary” but 
not binomial, are not accepted. 

(1) We may use the name Elcotris as dating from Schneider, taking Gobius 
pisonts Gmelin, waiving the fact that this is a “species non definienda” in 
Schneider’s conception—thus stabilizing current nomenclature. 

(2) We may apply the name Elcotris to some one of the species enumerated 
by Schneider, thus arbitrarily displacing one of the following well-established 
names: Valencicnnea, Nomeus, Apocryptes, Hybscleotris, Boleophthalmus or 
Pomatomus, genera of later date included in the incoherent mass. 

Convenience as well as justice is served by adopting the first alternative, 
using the name Eleotris in the sense of Gronow and Cuvier with Gobius pisonis 
as the type. 

The name Gobiomoroides has no place in this connection, and its type is as yet 
unidentified. 


EPINEPHELUS Bloch, 1792: type Epinephelus marginalis Bloch. 

The genus E-pinephelus was based on EF. afer, E. marginalis, E. merra, and E. 
ruber: marginalis and merra are congeneric, and belong to the great group 
called Epinephelus by Gill, Bleeker, and nearly all recent authors. Of these, 
marginalis is typical. The species named first, afer, has been on that account 
chosen as type by Fowler. This species was separated as the type of Alphestes 
by Bloch & Schneider, 1801; ruber was named as type by Jordan & Gilbert, 
in 1882, who supposed it to be congeneric with marginalis and this species under 
another name (acutirostris Cuv. & Val.) became the type of Parepinephelus 
Bleeker, 1875. Justice and convenience are best served by retaining the name 
Epinephelus for its chief components, typified by E. marginalis, as understood 
by nearly all authors. Otherwise the genus would stand as Cerna Bonaparte, 
1837, unless, with Fowler, we recognize Epinephelus gigas (Perca gigas) L. 
as the type of Serranus Cuvier, 1817, a change I think unnecessary. 


GyMNotHorAX Bloch, 1795: type Gymnothorax reticularis Bloch. 

As originally given, Gymnothorax was simply a substitute name for M/uraena 
L. Later, in dividing this extensive genus, Bleeker and after him Gunther used 
the name Gymmnothorax for one of its great divisions, and this arrangement 
has been largely followed. The first fixation of type may be held to separate 
Gymnothorax from Muraena, and | think that the use of the former name 


8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


should be preferred to the later Lycodontis McClelland based on one of the 
species of Gymnothorax. The case for the use of Gymnothorax is stated in 
Jordan, Genera of Iishes p. 168, that for its suppression on p. 53. 


LAMPETRA Gray, 1851: type Petromyson fluviatilis L. 

The type of Ammocoetus Duméril, 1806, Petromyzon planeri, is a larval 
lamprey of uncertain genus, and the name may be preferably used (as Ammo- 
coetes) as the designation for larval lampreys; while Lamipetra, the earliest 
name based on Petromyzon fluviatilis L. may be retained. 


MALApTERURUS Lacépéde, 1803: type Silurus electricus L. 

In 1775, Forskal discovered the Electric Catfish of the Nile (Silurus elec- 
tricus L.), which he confused with the Electric Ray (Raja torpedo L.) and 
which seemed to him to justify generic separation from Raja, He questions 
whether it might be allied to Mormyrus or whether it might find a place among 
the torpedoes of Rondelet, or might it be type of a new genus. “Aut potius 
novum constituere genus. Certe determinatur torpedinis Character Genericus: 
Piscis branchiostegus: apertura lineari, obliqua supra pinnae pectorales; cor- 
pore nudo; pinnis ventralibus seu abdominalibus; dentibus numerossissimis 
densis, subulatis.” This statement leaves no question as to the species in 
mind. 

In view of the confusion in Forskal’s account, and the uncertain fashion 
in which he describes the supposititious new genus, I suggest that the current 
‘use of Torpedo for the Electric Ray and Malapterurus for the Electric Cat- 
fish be approved. 

[Apstein 1915a, 188: Malapterurus Lacép., 1803, type electricus Gmel., 1788.] 


MusteLus Linck, 1790: type Squalus mustelus L. (= Mustelus laevis). 


The generic name Mustelus has been applied to a genus of sharks, typified 
by Squalus mustelus L. by several authors (Linck, 1700; Leach, 1812; Fischer, 
1813; and Cuvier, 1817). This Linnaean species is however based on refer- 
ences to both the two European species of this group, now usually regarded 
as belonging to different genera or subgenera. These have been usually called 
Mustelus laevis Risso, the “smooth hound” and Mustelus stellatus Risso 
(canis), the “spotted hound.” Those of the early writers who recognized 
these fishes failed to use the specific name mustelus for either, or else applied 
it to both. 

Linck, the earliest writer to propose the name Mustelus, however, dis- 
tinctly mentions Mustelus laevis as a synonym of Squalus mustelus L. and 
as his type, a fact which must fix the name Mustelus mustelus on the “ Smooth 
Hound.” The name thus replaces Pleuracromylon Gill. Galeus Rafinesque (as 
restricted by Jordan and Evermann, to S. mustelus L.) is also a synonym of 
Mustelus. 

The genus containing the “ Spotted Hound” should then stand as Cyntas 
Gill, the type species standing as Cymias canis (Mitchill). 

Valmont de Bomare, 1768, speaks of the ‘“ Spotted Hound” as “ Galeus 
asterias aut Mustelus stellaris; chien de mer & taches rondes.” But this 
binomial combination is merely a Latin translation of the French, certainly 
not intended as a scientific name. 








NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 9 


Garman (Plagiostomia, 1913) rejects the name Mustelus altogether, be- 
cause of its similarity to Mustela. But Mustela is a weasel and Mustelus a 
shark, a case parallel to that of Pica and Picus. 

[Apstein, 1915a, 188: Mustelus Cuv., 1817, type vulgaris J. Mill. & Henle, 
184r.] 


PoLyNEMUS Linnaeus, 1758: type Polynemus paradisacus L. 


The first real restriction seems to be that of Giinther, Cat. Fishes, II, 1860, 
319. No type is specified, but the non-congeneric species, P. quinquarius L., 
is removed to form the genus Pentanemus, a name originally employed by 
Artedi, but changed to Polynemus by Gronow. As this species, quinquarius, 
was the only one known to Artedi or to Gronow, Dr. Gill, with numerous 
writers, ourselves included, has regarded it as the type of Polynemus. But 
common usage with the formal selection of P. paradiscus L. as type by the 
first reviser, Jordan & Gilbert, Synopsis Fishes, 1882, should prevail. 


SctiAENA Linnaeus, 1758: type Sciaena umbra L.=Cheilodipterus aquila 
Lacépéde, as restricted by Cuvier,‘ 1815. 

Sciaena umbra of Linnaeus was a complex species made up of the later 
Sciaena aquila Lacépéde and Corvina nigra (Bloch); umbra is the natural 
type of Sciaena, but its component parts are not congeneric. The two species 
were confused until Cuvier (Mém. du Museum, 1815, and later in the Régne 
Animal, Edition II, 1829) made clear the difference and definitely chose 
aquila as the type of Sciaena. Jordan & Evermann have adopted Corvina 
nigra, under the name of Sciaena umobra, as type of Scitaena. An argument 
can be made for either arrangement, but convenience is best served and prob- 
ably justice also by accepting the name umbra for the species called aquila and 
recognizing this as type of Sciaena. The two species concerned should then 
stand as Sciaena umbra L. and Corvina nigra (Bloch). Bleeker has chosen 
as type Sciaena cirrosa, the species placed first as the type of Umbrina Cuvier, 
but this arrangement is not the first revision. 

[Apstein, 1915a, 189: Sciaena L., 1758, type aquila Risso, 1826.] 


SERRANUS Cuvier: type Perca cabrilla L. 

In proposing the generic name Serranus, Cuvier speaks of the species of 
the genus as “Jes serrans,’ “leur nom sur plusieurs cotes du Méditerranée.” 
“La Méditerranée en produit beaucoup, dont les plus communes s’y confon- 
dent sous les noms vulgaires de perche de mer, de serran, etc., et sont fort 
remarquables par la vivacité de leurs couleurs surtout a l’époque de l’amour.” 

These Serrans thus designated are obviously the species still called by that 
name, Serranus cabrilla and Serranus scriba of authors. But Cuvier neglects 
to mention either by its scientific name. In a further paragraph he mentions 
in Serranus, another species “beaucoup plus grand,’ Holocentrus gigas 
Schneider, which is a species of Epinephelus. For this reason, Towler (Proc. 
Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1907, 266) has taken gigas as the type of Scrranus, thus 
replacing LEpinephelus of authors, which name he leaves to Alphestes afer. 
No other writer has taken this view of the case, and I recommend the ap- 
proval of the current nomenclature, regarding Perca cabrilla L. as the geno- 
type of Serranus. 

[Apstein, I915a, 189: Serranus Cuv., 1820, type scriba L., 1758.] 


IO SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


STOLEPHORUS Lacépéde, 1803: type Stolephorus commersonianus Lacépede. 

Under the head of Stolephorus, Lacépéde (Hist. Nat. Poiss. V. 381, 1803) 
mentions two species, the first the Atherina japonica of Houttuyn, the second 
his own S. commersonianus. From the latter he derives his description, and 
on the latter Bleeker bases the genus Stolephorus as largely accepted. The 
Atherina japonica is very briefly and incorrectly described by Houttuyn, and 
it has been taken for granted that it was congeneric with the other, and being 
the first species named, it was indicated as type of the genus by Jordan & 
Evermann in 1896. It is probable, however, that Houttuyn had in mind the 
species of another family, named by Bleeker, Spratelloides argyrotaenia. In 
1917 (Genera of Fishes, 67) the present writer gave reasons for retaining 
A. japonica as type of Stolephorus, thus replacing Spratelloides Bleeker, while 
Stolephorus of Bleeker and authors generally would stand as Anchoviella 
Fowler. But it would make far less confusion as well as secure substantial 
justice to retain Stolephorus for the large group of which S. commersonianus 
is typical. 


TeutuHis Linnaeus, 1706: type Teuthis javus L. 

In the twelfth edition of the Systema Naturae, Linnaeus introduces the 
genus Teuthis, with two species, Teuthis hepatus and Teuthis javus. These 
species under polynomial names constitute the genus Hepatus, of the non- 
binomial Zoophylaceum of Gronow, 1763. The name Teuthis was taken from 
Browne (Jamaica), 1756, a pre-Linnaean writer, whose type was congeneric 
with that of Forskal’s Acanthurus. 

The two Linnaean species of Teuthis are but distantly related, a fact recog- 
nized by various subsequent writers. In 1775, the relatives of hepatus were 
set off by Forskal as Acanthurus, those of javus as Siganus. Cuvier used 
Teuthyes as a group name covering both types, the one being called Acan- 
thurus, the other, after Bloch and Schneider, 1801, Amphacanthus. 

The first author after Linnaeus to use Teuthis as a generic name was 
Cantor, 1849. It here replaces Siganus, with a correct definition and the Lin- 
naean species Teuthis javus, placed at the head of the series. 

In this usage, Gunther and all European writers have followed, and al- 
though the word “type” is not mentioned by Cantor, the arrangement will 
bear rigorous interpretation. 

Later Gill showed reasons why Teuthis hepatus should have been taken as 
type, Teuthis being a re-naming of Hepatus of Gronow, by reverting to the 
still earlier name of Browne. There is room for argument on both sides, but 
inasmuch as the first reviser (Cantor) selected Teuthis javus as type of Teuthis 
and current nomenclature outside of America uses Acanthurus for hepatus 
and its relatives and Teuthis instead of Stganus, I recommend that this 
course be approved by the Commission. In my own papers I have lately fol- 
lowed the suggestion of Dr. Gill, replacing the familiar Acanthurus by 
Teuthis or by Hepatus, reviving Siganius for the javus group. | am inclined 
to think this change unnecessary as it was certainly confusing, and that to 
follow Cantor is in better accord with established rules. 


Opinion prepared by Commissioner David Starr Jordan. 
Report on final vote: Two names Aétobatus and Lampetra have 
been tabled without prejudice pending further discussion at the next 








A 


NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 11 


meeting of the Commission. The other 12 names are unanimously 
adopted by a vote of 13 to o. 

Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Jordan, D. S., Jordan, K., 
Loennberg, Monticelli, Neveu-Lemaire, Skinner, Stiles, and Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, four (4) Commissioners: Dabbene, Hoyle, Kolbe, and 
Stejneger. 


I2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


OPINION 94 


Twenty-[wo MoLttuskK AND TUNICATE NAMES PLACED IN THE 
OrrFiciaAL List oF GENERIC NAMES 


SUMMARY.—The following names are hereby placed in the Official List of 
Generic Names: Mottusca: Anodonta, Argonauta, Buccinum, Calyptraea, 
Columbella, Dentalium, Helix, Limax, Mactra, Mya, Mytilus, Ostrea, Physa, 
Sepia, Sphaerium, Succinea, Teredo. Tuntcata: Botryllus, Clavelina, Diagona, 
Distaplia, Molgula. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—In Circular Letter No. 78, March, 1924, the 
Secretary submitted 39 generic names which had been proposed by 
Commissioner Apstein (1915a, pp. 181-184) as “ nomina conser- 
vanda.” These names were studied independently, especially by Dr. 
Bartsch of the United States National Museum and by Mr. B. B. 
Woodward of London, England. Several other specialists were also 
kind enough to consider the names, and the bibliographic references 
were checked in the Secretary’s office. It appears from the reports 
reaching the Secretary’s office that of these, 22 names are valid under 
the International Rules and that, therefore, they do not have to be 
adopted as “ nomina conservanda ” under “ Suspension of the Rules.” 

Considerable correspondence has reached the Secretary in regard to 
the names, 

Discusston.—In regard to 22 of the names no objection of any kind 
has reached the Secretary. In regard to 17 of the names, objection 
of one kind or another has reached the Secretary and these 17 cases 
are tabled without prejudice for consideration at the next meeting 
of the Commission. 

The following 22 names have not been objected to, and on this 
account and on basis of reports by specialists the Secretary recom- 
mends their inclusion in the Official List of Generic Names subject 
of course to the usual conditions: 


Anodonta Lam., 1799, 87, mt. Mytilus cygneus Linn., 1758a, 706. 

Argonauta L., 1758a, 708, type A. argo L., 1758a, 708. 

Botryllus Gaert., 1774, 35, type Alcyonium schlosseri Pallas, 1766, 355, s. 
Botryllus stellatus. 

Buccinum L., 1758a, 734, type B. undatum L., 1758a, 740. 

Calyptraca Lam., 1799, 78, mt. Patella chinensis L., 1758a, 781. 

Clavelina Savig., 1816, 171, type Ascidia lepadiformis Miller, 1776a, 226. 

Columbella Lam., 1799, 70, mt. Voluta mercatoria L., 1758a, 730. 

Dentalium L., 1758a, 785, type D. elephantinum L., 1758a, 785. 

Diazona Savig., 1816, 35, tod. D. violacea Savig., 1816, 35. 








NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 13 


Distaplia Della Valle, 1881, 14, [mt. D. magnilarva Della Valle, not men- 
tioned in 1881, 14-15, in Latin, but “grossa larva” given on p. 14, later 
(1882, 47) published in Latin]. 

Helix L., 1758a, 768, type H. pomatia L., 1758a, 771. 

Limax L., 1758a, 652, type L. maximus L., 1758a, 652. 

Mactra L., 1767, 1125, type M. stultorum L., 1767, 1126. 

Molgula Forbes, 1848; 1853, 36, type M. oculata Forbes, 1848; 1853, 36. 

Mya L., 1758a, 670, type M. truncata L., 1758a, 670. 

Mytilus L., 1758a, 704, type M. edulis L., 1758a, 705. 

Ostrea L., 1758a, 696, type O. edulis L., 1758a, 699. 

Physa Drap., 1801, 31, type Bulla fontinalis L., 1758a, 727. 

Sepia L., 1758a, 658, type S. officinalis L., 1758a, 658. 

Sphaerium Scop., 1777, 397, type Tellina cornea L., 1758a, 678. 

Succinea Drap., 1801, 32, type Helix putris L., 1758a, 774. 

Teredo L., 1758a, 651, type T. navalis L., 1758a, 651. 


Opinion prepared by Secretary. 

Opinion concurred in by fourteen (14) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Dautzenberg, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Jordan, D. S., 
Jordan, K., Kolbe, Loennberg, Monticelli, Skinner, Stiles, Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, three (3) Commissioners: Dabbene, Hoyle, Stejneger. 


14 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


OPINION 95 


Two GENERIC NAMES OF PROTOZOA PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL 
List oF GENERIC NAMES 


SUMMARY.—The following names are hereby placed in the Official List of 
Generic Names—Protozoa: Endamocba, Trypanosoma. 





STATEMENT OF CASE.—I. Professor R. W. Hegner, of the Johns 
Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, has recommended to 
the Helminthological Society of Washington, that the said Society 
bring to the attention of the International Commission on Zoologi- 
cal Nomenclature the following five generic names of important para- 
sitic Protozoa, with a view to inserting them in the Official List of 
Generic Names. The Society has voted to support the names. 

2. The Secretary of the Commission has studied all five of these 
cases in detail, and believes that they are nomenclatorially available 
and valid under the International Rules, and he recommends their 
adoption by the Commission. 

3. The names are as follows: 


Endamocba Leidy, 1879a, 300, mt. blattae Buetschli, 1878a, 273, t. h. Blatta 
ortentalis. 

Giardia Kunstler, 1882, CrAS, v. 95, 3490, mt. G. agilis Kunstler, 1882, 349, in 
intestine of tadpole of Rana. 

Trichomonas (Donné, 1837) Ehrenb., 1838a, 331 (emendation of Tricomo- 
nas), mt. vaginalis Donné, 1837. 

Trypanosoma Gruby, 1843a, 1134, mt. T. sanguinis Gruby, 1843a, Nov. 13,= 
Amoeba rotatoria Mayer, 1843, in blood of Rana. 

Balantidium Clap. & Lachm., 1858b, 247, mt. Bursaria entozoon Ehrenb., 1838b, 
327. 


4. Commissioner Apstein has proposed three of the foregoing 
names in his paper of 1915a, nomina conservanda, p. 122, as follows: 


Balantidium Clap. & Lachm., 1858, type coli Malmst., 1857. 
Trichomonas Donné, 1837, type vaginalis Donné, 1837. 
Trypanosoma Gruby, 1843, type sanguinis Gruby, 1843. 


5. Commissioner Apstein and the Secretary agree in all details in 
regard to Trichomonas and Trypanosoma. Apstein accepts coli as 
the type of Balantidium, but Balantidium 1858 was monotypic (ento- 
soon), and C. & L. in the same paper classified coli as a Plagiotoma; 
accordingly under the Code, coli is excluded as type of Balantidium. 
Commissioner Apstein does not mention Endamoeba or Giardia. 





NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 15 


6. Report on Voting: Endamoeba, type blattae, and Trypanosoma, 
type sanguinis=rotatoria, received 14 affirmative votes and no vote 
in the negative. 

Giardia, Trichomonas and Balantidium are tabled without preju- 
dice. They will be discussed further at the next meeting of the 
Commission. 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by fourteen (14) Commissioners: Annandale, 
Apstein, Bather, Handlirsch, Horvath, Jordan, D. S., Jordan, K., 
Kolbe, Loennberg, Monticelli, Neveu-Lemaire, Skinner, Stiles, 
Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, three (3) Commissioners: Dabbene, Hartert, Stejneger. 


16 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


OPINION 96 
MuseEuM BoLTENIANUM 


SUMMARY .—The Commission accepts the Museum Boltenianum 1798 as 
nomenclatorialiy available under the International Rules. 





STATEMENT OF CASE.—Dr. C. Tate Regan of London submits the 
following case for opinion: 


Are the names in the Museum Boltenianum to be accepted? 

Museum Boltenianum is the title of a catalogue of the shells, minerals, and 
objects of art collected by Dr. Bolten. It was printed in 1798, after his death, 
by his family, who wished to sell the collections. Failing in their object to 
sell the collections as a whole the catalogue was reprinted in 1819, when the 
title-page states it is a catalogue of the shells, minerals, etc., which will be 
openly sold by J. Noodt on April 26 at 10 o’clock in the morning. 

Bolten had his own system of nomenclature of shells and to make his names 
intelligible to intending purchasers one Roeding was employed to add the 
names in Gmelin’s Edition of Linnaeus. 

There is no author’s name on the catalogue. No indication that it was 
published, or sold. 

It was, in fact, a sale catalogue, doubtless distributed to likely purchasers, 
but without other circulation. 

Opinion 51 seems to apply. 


Discussion.—In Opinion 51 the Commission has frankly admitted 
the extreme difficulty of clearly defining the word “ publication’ and 
it has expressed the opinion “ that in some cases it is an easier matter 
to take a specific paper and decide the individual case on its merits, 
than it is to lay down a general rule which will be applicable to all 
cases.” 

The Museum Boltenianum has been discussed by Wm. H. Dall in 
Publication 2360 Smithsonian Institution (copies herewith submitted 
to members of the Commission) which is herewith made a part of 
Opinion No. 96. 

The Secretary has submitted the case again to Dr. Wm. H. Dall 
and to Dr. Paul Bartsch, specialists in conchology. Dr. Dall has not 
changed the opinion he expressed in 1915 and he reports to the 
Secretary as follows: 


It was not a sale-catalogue in the ordinary sense of being made for the 
purpose of selling, and the additions of R6ding were a labor of love. 

Bolten’s names have been adopted by all first class workers in conchology, 
and I know of only one man, a German, who objects to them. 

Since they are practically in universal use, any action invalidating them 
would be a calamity. 


85h Oa abe: 52 eg 








NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 i7 


Dr. Bartsch concurs with Dr. Dall. 

The Secretary has examined three prints of this Catalogue, one 
of 1798, a second of 1819, and a third of 1906. 

If this case rested upon the edition of 1819, the Secretary would 
feel that there is distinct room for a legitimate difference of opinion 
on the question at issue, although he would find it very difficult to 
explain why an auctioneer’s catalogue should contain detailed biblio- 
graphic references, the compiling of which probably cost much more 
than the price the collection would bring at auction. 

The edition of 1798, however, bears all the earmarks of a carefully 
prepared manuscript intended to be printed as a permanent record 
with only incidental reference to sale. The Secretary is constrained to 
concur with Doctors Dall and Bartsch that this (first edition, at least) 
represents a scientific document rather than a sales catalogue, and the 
fact that the family of the deceased author wished to sell the collection 
seems to have its parallel in some modern zoological papers in which 
authors offer to exchange specimens (namely, to dispose of their 
specimens for a consideration) ; the fact that the return-consideration 
asked is specimens (with a money value.) in one case and money itself 
in another case, appears to represent conditions identical in general 
but differing only in detail. 

The Commission has the statement of two specialists in Conchology 
that “ Bolten’s names” “are practically in universal use” and that 
“any action invalidating them would be a calamity.’ On basis of this 
expert testimony combined with the fact that no formal necessity 
(under the Rules) appears to be present to indicate the necessity of 
rejecting the (first edition, 1798, of this) publication, the Sec- 
retary recommends that the Commission accept the Museum Bol- 
tenianum, 1798, as nomenclatorially available under the Internationa! 
Rules. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

The foregoing Opinion was submitted to the Commission and a vote 
was taken with the following result: 

Opinion concurred in by twelve (12) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Dautzenberg, Horvath, Jordan, D. S., Jordan, K., Kolbe, 
Monticelli, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles, Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by three (3) Commissioners: Annandale, 
Tandlirsch, Loennberg. 

Not voting, three (3) Commissioners: Dabbene, Hartert, Hoyle. 

Commissioner Annandale states : 


I feel obliged to dissent from the opinion proposed in your circular letter 
No. 72. I think it necessary to give my reasons. In the first place I do not 


18 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


agree with Dr. Dall that all first class workers on conchology have accepted 
the nomenclature of the Museum Boltenianum. 

In the second place, the question is, as is acknowledged, an extremely diff- 
cult one and I do not believe in revising nomenclature that has been uni- 
versally accepted for many years, in doubtful cases. 

I should state, however, that my colleague, Dr. Baini Prashad, the only 
other zoologist in Asia but myself who has yet done considerable systematic 
work in malacology, is now prepared to accept the Boltenianum nomenclature, 
although he has not done so in his published papers up to the present. 


Commissioner Handlirsch states: 


Die Bolten’schen Namen sind nur in Amerika in “universal use’—in 
Europa keineswegs. Man sieht aus diesem Beispiele wieder, dass eine aus- 
giebige Liste von “nomina conservanda” ein Segen fiir unsere Wissenschaft 
ware. 


Commissioner Skinner states : 


Dr. H. A. Pilsbry takes exception to the opinion on the ground of what 
“constitutes publication,’ a paucity of copies, not accessible to nearly con- 
temporary writers, this making all the trouble. 


The foregoing objections were submitted to the Commission and a 
new vote was taken with the following result: 

Opinion concurred in by eleven (11) Commissioners: Bather, 
Chapman, Horvath, Jordan (D.S.), Jordan (K.), Monticelli, Neveu- 
Lemaire, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles, and Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by three (3) Commissioners: <Apstein, 
Handlirsch, and Kolbe. 

Not voting, four (4) Commissioners: Dabbene, Hartert, Hoyle, 
Loennberg. 


Nore spy SEcRETARY.—During the proof-reading of Opinion 96, 
Dr. H. A. Pilsbry has submitted to the Secretary an elaboration of 
his views cited briefly by Commissioner Skinner. This document will 
be sent to the Commissioners. 








NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO Q7 19 


OPINION 97 
Dip HUBNER’s TENTAMEN, 1806, CREATE Monotyrpic GENERA? 


SUMMARY.—Hibne:’s Tentamen, 1806, was obviously prepared essentially 
as a manifolded manuscript, or as a proof sheet (cf. Opinion 87), for examina- 
tion and opinion by a restricted group of experts, i. c., in Lepidoptera, and not 
for general distribution as a record in Zoology. Accordingly, the conclusion 
that it was published in 1806 is subject to debate. Even if the premise be 
admitted that it was published in 1806, the point is debatable whether the 
contained binomials should be construed as generic plus specific names. Even 
if it be admitted that the binomials represent combinations of generic plus 
specific names, they are essentially nomuna nuda (as of the date in question) 
since authors who do not possess esoteric information in regard to them are 
unable definitely to interpret them without reference to later literature. If 
published with more definite data at later dates, these names have their 
status in regard to availability as of their date of such republication. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Dr. J. McDunnough, Entomological Branch, 
Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada, has submitted to the 
Commission the question: Did Hutbner’s Tentamen, 1806, create 
monotypical and valid genera? As the validity of the units in question 
is a zoological, not a nomenclatorial problem, the Secretary modifies 
the question to read: Did Hutbner’s Tentamen, 1806, create mono- 
typic genera? Dr, McDunnough presented the following data: 


In the May number of the Entomologist’s Record for 1919, the second instal- 
ment of Baker and Durrant’s comparison of Jacob Hutbner’s Tentamen and 
Verzeichniss, elucidating his system of Lepidoptera, is prefaced by a few 
remarks by Mr. Bethune Baker, who strongly supports the view that the 
Tentamen creates generic names perfectly valid for use by systematic workers. 

As my name is mentioned as one of those opposing the adoption of the 
Tentamen terms as valid genera, perhaps a few brief words, explaining my 
views more explicitly than I have heretofore done, may not be amiss. 

The question of the validity or non-validity of the so-called ‘genera’ of 
the Tentamen has already been the subject of much controversy and no one 
is more anxious than I am to arrive at a definite decision regarding this per- 
plexing pamphlet. Until this is done it will be impossible to introduce sta- 
bility into the generic nomenclature of Lepidoptera as, owing to the early 
date of issue (1806), the Tentamen names, if accepted, will take priority over 
numerous long established generic names. 

Since the publication of the brief statement in the introduction to Barnes 
& McDunnough’s Check List of North American Lepidoptera, I have given 
the matter considerable further study, and I am now perfectly willing to 
agree with Mr. Baker that we must consider the Tentamen to have at least 
been published and that it certainly will not be sufficient to discard the names 
therein proposed as inedited. This, however, does not settle the matter to 


20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


my mind and we are still faced with the question as to whether Hibner 
created what can be termed modern genera in the aforesaid work or not. 

It is a well-known fact that Hiibner did not employ the term ‘genus’ to 
signify the category immediately above a species. The Hitibnerian ‘coitus’ 
as used in the Verzeichniss has been, however, generally accepted as typi- 
fying the modern ‘genus’ and as fulfilling the requirements of the Inter- 
national Code in respect to generic validity. Turning to the Tentamen, we 
at once see from the title that Hiibner is not dealing with coiti but with stirpes 
and that, in fact, the Tentamen is but the merest skeleton of a system which 
was amplified ten years later in the Verzeichniss, where the stirpes of the 
Tentamen are employed only in a plural sense [in the text, but in the singular 
in the index.—C. W. S.] and correspond with our modern ideas of a sub- 
family or even a family. The unfortunate fect remains that in the Tentamen 
Hubner, besides his plural usage, actually has employed the stirps name in 
the singular in connection with a specific name. It must seem evident that 
the intention was merely to cite a species considered by the author to be typi- 
cal of each stirps and the usage of the term in the singular number was prob- 
ably merely to conform to the rules of correct Latin [the paper is entirely in 
Latin—C. W. S.]; one of the strongest arguments in favor of this view is 
the fact that in the Verzeichniss each and every specific [107—C. W. S.] 
name used in the Tentamen is placed by Hubner in a coitus not identical in 
name with the term employed in the Tentamen (2s would naturally be the 
case if he had intended creating coiti in this pamphlet) but for which he 
either uses a generic name created by one of the early writers (Fabricius, 
Schrank, Ochsenheimer, etc.) or, failing this, actually proposes a new name. 

The vital question then is, briefly stated—did Htibner by his employment 
of a stirps name in the singular along with a valid specific name actually— 
even if unintentionally—create a valid generic name? Common sense would 
seem to tell us, No, but on the other hand there is nothing in the Interna- 
tional Code which would definitely forbid the usage of these terms as genera 
nor can I find any ruling under the Opinions rendered by the International 
Commission which would cover this case. Under the Code the sole absolute 
requirements for generic validity [availability—C. W. S.] would appear to 
be uninominality and association with a valid [valid?—C. W. S.] specific 
name. 

I would, therefore, offer the suggestion that the decision be left to an 
International Committee; I, for one, would willingly abide by their ruling and 
I am sure that most systematic workers in Lepidoptera would be glad to see 
the end of a vexatious question which, while affecting considerably the 
nomenclature of Lepidoptera, has, after all, no vital bearing on the larger 
problem of the interrelationships of the various species. 


DisCUSSION BY SECRETARY.—The case now before the Commission 
has for many years been the subject of earnest controversy. It has 
been before the Commission for many months and has resulted in 
voluminous correspondence. 

The Committee on Nomenclature of the Washington Entomologi- 
cal Society has studied the case and reports to the Secretary as follows: 


In the minds of this Committee there is no doubt that Htibner’s Tentamen 
is a publication and should therefore be treated as such. 





A 
j 

’ 
» 
’ 
, 


NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 at 


To certain entomologists, Sir George H. Hampson, Bart., sub- 
mitted this case in the following form, namely: 


Are the genera of Htibner’s Tentamen to be accepted or not? If accepted, 
what date is assigned to them? 


and J. H. Durant* (1899) summarizes the replies as follows: 


1. As TO VALIDITY. 


To be accepted: 1 Walsingham, 2 Kirby, 3 Fernald, 4 Grote (= 4/11). It 
may be assumed from his writings and note that Scudder concurs (=5/II). 

To be rejected: 1 Hampson, 2 Meyrick, 3 Smith, 4 Snellen, 5 Aurivillius, 
6 Staudinger (= 6/11). 

Result 5-6/11; majority against accepting genera. 


2. As To DATE, 


No reply received from 1 Hampson, 2 Meyrick, 3 Snellen, 4 Aurivillius 
(iia =7). 

Published in 1806: 1 Walsingham, 2 Fernald, 3 Staudinger, 4 Grote, 5 Smith 
(=3/7). It may be assumed that Scudder concurs as he has adopted this 


madate,( = 6/7). 


Commissioner Karl Jordan submitted the case to “ Members of 
the Entomological Committee on Nomenclature” and “ various 


” 


local committees and .... ,” in addition, asked “a number of 
entomologists for their views.” He reports to the Secretary as 
follows: 


1. Arguments for the acceptance of the Tentamen names.—t. The Tenta- 
men was distributed as a printed quarto sheet in 1806. Htibner in Verzeich- 
niss 1816, says of it that he made it at once known “10 years ago.’ Ochsen- 
heimer states in 1816 that “Hiibner has issued .... the plan of a classi- 
fication of the Lepidoptera printed on a quarto sheet,’ and treats it as a 
publication of valid names, which he adopts; a reference in Vol. III of 
Ochsenheimer implies that he knew the Tentamen to have been in existence 
before 1810. Several copies are known, some discovered bound up in other 
books on Lepidoptera, which is evidence that the recipients of a copy did not 
consider it to be a mere advertisement, but scientific matter well worth pre- 
serving. The classification published in the Tentamen was adopted by Hutb- 
ner on the plates of Vol. I of his Samml. Exot. Schmett. (1806-1834). 

2. The stirpes (genera) are well defined by the fact that only one species 
is cited under each stirps. All these species (types of genera) were known. 
In every case the names of the Tentamen can be identified through Hutbner’s 
own illustrations of the species cited. “ We can find out to a dead certainty 
what Hiibner meant” (Grote), and there can be no doubt about the publica- 
tion of each generic name. 





*Nomenclature of Lepidoptera <Proceedings 4th International Congr. 


Zool. (1898), 1899, 285. 


22 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


3. The citation of a known species as the type of a new genus is a much 
better definition and. guide than, for instance, Hiibner’s descriptions in the 
Verzeichniss, the names of which are generally accepted as valid [available— 
C. W. S.] in spite of the futility of these so-called descriptions. With re- 
gard to the Tentamen, we turn to Hiibner’s figure and can ascertain what 
species was intended, and for ourselves test whether the genus be valid or not. 

4. No one will be disposed to doubt the necessity for full definition of all 
genera published after the acceptance of the British Association Rules, but 
it was impossible for authors who lived and died before these rules were 
made known to act upon them. The nomina nuda published before 1842 
(Brit. Assoc.) stood upon an entirely different footing from those published 
after that date (cf. Zool. Congr. 1808). 

5. If the Tentamen names are rejected, many other names (7. ¢., many of 
Ochsenheimer’s and Guenee’s, which are in general use, but have no more 
claim to recognition than have Hitbner’s) must be discarded, and the con- 
fusion would be terrible. 

In favor of the acceptance of the Tentamen are: C. T. Bethune Baker 
(Leamington Spa), J. H. Durant (London), J. de Joinnis (Paris), R. Puen- 
geler (Aachen), N. D. Riley (London), H. Stichel (Berlin). 

Il. Arguments against the acceptance of the Tentamen names.—t. The 
Tentamen was probably sent only to some of the subscribers to Hibner’s 
Samml. Europ. Schmett., which would account for the number of known 
copies being so very small. Hubner, in Verzeichniss in 1818, states that he 
conceived the idea of a classification of the Lepidoptera, but that, before he 
would adopt it himself, he had communicated the plan of it to experts for 
examination and criticism. He was his own publisher, and the quarto sheet 
giving the skeleton of a tentative classification appears to be in the nature of 
a publisher’s prospectus, which is not a publication valid for nomenclatorial 
purposes. Hitbner nevertheless adopted the plan for the plates of Vol. 1 of 
Samml. Exot. Schmett., interpolating here a third name between stirpes and 
species, Nereis fulva Polymnia. In the letter-press to this Vol. 1 and in all 
his other publications he rejected the Tentamen names, employing them in 
the plural form for higher divisions only, not for genera. 

2. The stirpes in the Tentamen are without descriptions and references. 
Though under each stirps one species is quoted (Rusticus Argus—Princeps 
Machaon—), no author is given. The majority of these specific names oc- 
curred among Lepidoptera only once before 1808, and we assume that such 
specific names in the Tentamen refer to those known species and not to other 
species. However, 17 of the names had been applied before 1806 to two, 
three, or four species (proserpina, maturna, malvae, fabius, culiciformis, 
carpint, barthenias, lunaria, auriflua, affinis, aprilina, flavicincta, fulvago, lyth- 
oxylea, umbratica, barbalis, bombycalis). In these cases again we may assume 
that Hubner meant the species he had figured before 1806. But which of 
the two fabius then known did he mean with Consul Fabius, not figured by 
him? What is his Elophila Limnalis? Is Limnalis a new name or is it (like 
Maeniata for Moeniata) a misprint for Limbalis or for Lemmalis, both 
figured before? What is Phyllonorycter Rajella? Did he mean Rajella Linn., 
or the very different Rahella Hubn.? 

Rigorously construed, the absence of descriptions, references and authors 
leaves all the names open to conjecture. 





i pees 


NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 2 


3. The combination of two words Princeps Machaon can in no way be inter- 
preted as a definition of the genus Princeps. The combination can mean that 
the new genus Princeps contains only one species, machaon, or all the species 
similar to machaon, or all the butterflies not placed in other genera. In 1806 
the recipient of a copy of the Tentamen could not know whether Hittbner 
wished him to put the one or the other construction on the naked names. 
Nobody in 1806, except Hubner himself, could know in which stirpes of the 
Tentamen to place the larger proportion of the species then already well 
known. There is not the slightest indication where to place, for instance, 
the numerous Erycinids then already figured. The Tentamen was a mere 
skeleton intended to be filled in later, but abandoned by its author. 

The citation of a species is not a definition of a genus; a higher category 
is not defined by one lower category. [Cf., however, Opinion 1.—C. W. S.] 

4. Linnaeus clearly stated the rules of nomenclature in the introduction to 
Syst. Nat. X, 1758 [Philos. botan., 1753—C. W. S.]. He demanded that the 
various systematic concepts be defined by stating the differences. 

5. If the Tentamen names are adopted no good will be served, some familiar 
names, such as Abraras, will be superseded, other lists of naked names will 
become valid publications, and numerous useless changes and infinite chaos 
will result. 

Against the acceptance of the Tentamen names are: G. J. Arrow (London), 
Chr. Aurivillius (Stockholm), E. FE. Austen (London), Kk. G. Blair (London), 
E. L. Bouvier (Paris), G. C. Champion (Woking), H. Eltringham (Oxford), 
A. Handlirsch (Wien), C. G. Gahan (London), K. Enderlein (Berlin), M. 
Hering (Berlin), K. Holdhaus (Wien), O. Meissner (Potsdam), F. Reyer 
(Saarbruecken), E. Meyrick (Marlborough), H. Rebel (Wien), Rothschild 
(Tring), L. B. Prout (London), S. Schenkling (Berlin), P. Schulse (Berlin), 
W. H. Tams (London), H. Zerny (Wien). 

E. L. Bouvier, R. Verity, and J. Waterston would be in favor of retaining 
such names as are in general use, which could be done by placing them by 
common consent on the List of Nomina Conservanda. 

K. M. C. Heller (Dresden) is not quite sure that the Tentamen can be 
regarded as a publication. 

Messrs. Enderlein, Hering, and Hesse (Berlin) are against the reintro- 
duction of names which have been out of use for a period of (say) 50 years. 


The Secretary has found a division of opinion among American 
entomologists, but nearly or practically all of the North American 
workers in Lepidoptera seem to be distinctly of the opinion that the 
names in question are available under the Code; and the following 
summary by Ioster H. Benjamin seems to be a fair presentation of 
their views: 


We believe that the Tentamen was published about 18c5 or 1806, and that 
copies have been available ever since; that its authorship is clear, that its 
author created a number of monotypic genera, thereby designating types; that 
these genotypes were published in tabular form under the name of. their 
former genus or subgenus; that in consideration of the date of issue of the 
Tentamen it requires no knowledge of Lepidoptera to determine that Papilio 
polymnia, or Noctua segetis are species which have been well published under 


24 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


all rules of the Code; that authorship following the specific names is not only 
not definitely required under the Code, but that any general zoologist in 
1806 would have known immediately in his own mind exactly what taxonomic 
organism Hitbner listed at least in the great bulk of the listings without even 
the need of trying to look anything up; we find nothing in the Code which 
states that what constitutes an easily interpreted indication in 1806 (or 1925) 
may later, 1925 (or 2044) become not valid by reason of the addition of unsup- 
pressed homonyms or because of any other complications, especially after 
the indication had been rendered still more available by correct interpreta- 
tion by a number of different authors in the intermediate period. 


The Secretary presents the following evidence to the Commission. 

TITLE oF DOCUMENT.—The following is the title of the document 
in question as copied from a photostatic reproduction of a copy 
bearing the following “ Reprinted in facsimile by S. H. Scudder— 
Cambridge, U. S. A., 1873” : Tentamen determinationis digestionis 
atque denominationis singularum stirpium Lepidopterorum, peritis ad 
inspiciendum et dijudicandum communicatum, a Jacobo Hubner. 

This title might be translated into English, in various phraseology, 
as follows: “a tentative (or attempt) determination (or to determine, 
limit), division (or to divide, orderly distribution, arrangement) and 
naming (denominating, change of name=metonymy) of the separate 
(single, one by one) stems (sticks, families, races, cf. stirps, genus, 
family) of Lepidoptera communicated to experts (the skilled, the ex- 
perienced, the practically acquainted) for their inspection (look into, 
consideration, contemplation, examination) and judgment. [Italics 
by Secretary. ] 

Ochsenheimer (1816, viii) states: 


Herr Hiibner hat unter dem Titel: Tentamen.... [etc.] .... den Ent- 
wurf eines Systems des Schmetterlinge auf einem Quartblatte abgedruckt 
herausgegeben, worin die von ihm angegebenen Familien mit Gattungsnamen 
von verschiedenen Werthe belegt sind. 


Hitibner (1816, Verzeichniss, p. 3) refers to the Tentamen as 


follows: 


Die Grundlage dieses Entwurfes habe ich sogleich, unter dem Titel: Tenta- 
men determinationis, digestionis atque denominationis singularum  stirpium 
Lepidopterorum bekannt gemacht, damit sie von Verstindigen, bevor ich sie 
annihme, geprift und beurtheilt werden mochte. [Italics by Secretary.] 


Hitibner (1818, Zutrage, pp. 4-5) printed what is practically a 
second, modified and enlarged, version of his Tentamen, preceding 
it with the following statement : 

Denn mein 1806 bekannt gemachter Versuch einer Bestimmung, Anordnung 


und Benennung aller Stimme der Schmettlinge wurde weder gleich verwor- 
fen, noch gleich ergriffen. Erst nach und nach wird er beachtet, und durch 


=a: 


naling elenile~ 


- 


NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO Q7 


bo 
cn 


Zusatste, Berichtigungen und Verbesserungen zu einem brauchbaren System 
erhoben werden konnen. 

Weil ich mich nun bey diesen Zutragen sowohl als bey meiner Sammlung 
exotischer Schmettlinge einstweilen nach meinem Entwurfe zu richten habe, 
bis ein trefflicheres System entstanden seyn wird, so halte ich es ftir unum- 
ganglich, denselben nach seinem hauptsachlichsten Inhalt hier einigermassen 
verbessert aufzustellen. 





From the foregoing the conclusion would seem justified that in 
1806 Hubner had no intention whatever of placing on record a 
series of generic and specific names in the sense of publication as 
ordinarily understood by the zoological profession and if the names 
in question are accepted as available under the Code, this must be 
on the principle of holding a man responsible for something which 
he obviously did not intend to do and in face of the precaution he 
took to state that this document was for evamination by experts, 
namely specialists in Lepidoptera [rather than as a permanent record]. 
If this decision is made against Hubner despite the precautionary 
wording of the title a very broad question 1s opened up as to the 
status of numerous documents printed and privately distributed with 
such headings as “ Printed as Manuscript”? ‘‘ Not for Citation,” 
etc. Cf. also Opinion 89. 

Granting that the word “ publication ” is poorly defined and the fact 
that the Tentamen was manifolded by printing, the point is still out- 
standing that Hubner did not intend this document for general dis- 
tribution as a permanent document but only in the light of correspon- 
dence for restricted distribution to specialists in Lepidoptera. 

The Secretary concludes that the question whether this document 
was actually “ published ” or not is subject to debate, but that Htibner 
himself clearly warned that it was not to be considered a permanent 
document for general distribution. 

HUBNER’S USE OF TERMS “ STIRPS,” “ COITUS,” AND “ GENERA ”’.— 
Hubner (1806) divides the Lepidoptera into Phalanx I Papiliones to 
Phalanx IX Alucitae. The following subdivisions of Phalanx T show 
the full details of his use of technical names in the Tentamen. 


39 G8 


PHALANX I, PAPILIONES 
Tribus I: nymphales 


I. Nereides—Nereis Polymnia. 
Il. Limnades—Limnas Chrysippus. 
III. Lemoniades—Lemonias Maturna. 
IV. Dryades—Dryas Paphia. 
V. Hamadryades—Hamadryas Jo. 
VI. Najades—Najas Populi. 

VII. Potamides—Potamis Iris. 

VIII. Oreades—Oreas Proserpina. 





20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL: 973 


The question arises as to how the entry “I. Nereides” etc., for 
instance, is to be interpreted. It will be noticed the Nereides is in the 
plural and that “ Nereis Polymmnia” is in the form of a binomial in 
the singular. Htbner, 1816, p. 8, and 1818, 4, shows that Nereides 
was intended as Stirps, printed as plural in the text and as singular 
Nereis in the Index. Further Hubner (1816, p. 8) uses the German 


of other 
authors, while in the indices both in 1816 and 1818 he uses the Ger- 


word “-Verein,” Latin “ Coitus,” im the sense of “genus” 


man word “ Gattungen” (Latin “ genera ’”’) in the sense of “ species ” 
of other zoologists. The coitus name he prints (1816, p. 8), ex- 
ample Hymenites, in the plural, in the text, when used alone, but in 
the singular (example, Hymenitis diaphane p. 8) when used in a bino- 
mial form, and in the index, he prints it in the singular (example Hy- 
menitis). Thus, from his other publications it seems clear: (a) that 
the Verein=“‘ Coitus ” of Hubner is intended to be identical with the 
genus as used by other authors, and (b) that the next lower unit 
“ Gattung”’=‘“‘ Genus” of Htbner is intended to represent the 
“species” of other authors. Hubner (1816, p. 8) quotes Nereides 
as Stirps I in the plural and it seems reasonable to conclude that he 
intended the Nereides as used in his Tentamen, 1806, to represent 
Stirps I. 

It is to be noted that the word “ Stirps’’ among early authors is 
not used uniformly. Thus Brisson (1762, 131-132) divides groups 
in the following serial units: Ordo, Sectio, Genus, Stirps [practically 
a subgenus], [species]. Gronovius (1763, 5) quotes the Stirps prac- 
tically as a genus. Hubner (1816) clearly used the Stirps (=Stamm) 
as supergeneric. 

Possibly Hubner’s word “ stirpium ” in the Tentamen title (1806) 
is clear to specialists, but only by consulting his other works (as 1816 
and 1818) does it become clear to the general zoologist that Hubner’s 
Stirps is a supergeneric group, cited sometimes in the plural, some- 
times in the singular. Accordingly, the position of the ‘ 
of 1806 is not clear as of the date 1806, 


‘ stirpium ” 


In seeking for an interpretation of the binomial Nereis Polymnia 
on the other hand it is to be noticed that there is a Linnaean species 
polymnia quoted by Hubner (1816, p. 11) as Mechanitis polymmia, 
and that no combination “ Nercis Polymnia” appears to be cited in 
1816. In hunting for the second binomial combination Limnas Chry- 
Sippus 1806, it is found that there is a species (1816, p. 15) cited as 
Euploea Chrysippe, but a combination Limnas Chrysippus does not 
seem to be present in Hubner, 1810. 





NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 27 


Thus a legitimate question arises as to whether Hubner intended 
Nereis Polyimnia etc. to be interpreted as binomial combinations in 
nomenclature. Apparently 107 binomial combinations of this type 
are involved. 

Were it not for Hubner’s later publication 1816 the presumption 
would be that Limnas Polymnia of 1806 represents a binomial com- 
bination of our generic and specific names, 7. ¢., his coitus and generic 
names.” 

Further, it is seen that Htbner sometimes quotes his “ coitus ’ 
(our genus) in the plural, other times in the singular, and that his 
“senus’”’ (‘“ Gattung’’) is our species. 

The Secretary concludes that the plural names cited in 1806 in 
Hubner’s Tentamen represent a supergeneric taxonomic unit which 
in 1816 Hubner calls a Stamm (German) or Stirps (Latin) but that 
the question is open to debate whether the binomial combinations 
(example Limnas Polymnia) in 1806 are intended to designate mono- 
typic genera. However clear the title of the Tentamen may be to 
specialists in Lepidoptera it was not clear to the Secretary until he 
consulted Hubner, 1816, p. 8. The word stirpimim in the title of the 
Tentamen becomes unambiguous in 18160, namely, it refers to the 
Stamm (German) =Stirps (Latin), namely, a supergeneric unit and 
it becomes obvious that the real object back of the Tentamen was 
the tentative division of the Lepidoptera into supergeneric groups 
(Stirps=Stamm), and not the consideration of 107 generic names 
with their type species. In other words Hubner asked, his special 
colleagues for their opinion on the names printed in the plural, not 
on the question of the validity of new genera. 


‘Mr. Benjamin, in correspondence with the Secretary, has pointed out that 
five of the names used by Hiibner are of prior date, namely— 

1. Hepialus [emended to Hepiolus by Iliger] humili Fabr., 1775, 589. 

2. Pterophorus pentadactylus (Linn., 1758a [Phalacna]) Fabr., 1775, 672, 

cf. Pterophora pentadactyla in Hubner. 
Sesia culiciformis (Linn., 1758a [Sphinx]) Fabr., 1775, 549. 

4. Thyris Laspeyres in Illiger, 1803, Il, 39 [Cf. Thyris Ochsenh., 1808, cited 

by Agassiz. | 

5. Zygaena filipendulae (Linn., 1758a [Sphinx]) Fabr., 1775, 550. 
and Mr. Benjamin maintains that Hiibner attempts to fix the type for 
Zygaena, 


w 


The Secretary has checked these references (no. 4 in Agassiz; nos. I, 2, 3, 
5, In Sherborn). 

Mr. Benjamin has undoubtedly raised an interesting point; but the Secretary 
is not persuaded that the argument is materially altered; nor is it clear to 
the Secretary that the type of Zygaena was fixed by Hubner.—Note added after 
third vote was taken. 





28 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


As these supergeneric names were again printed in Hubner, 1816, 
they take Hubnerian status of availability in 1816 in case Hiibner, 
1806, is not accepted as publication. 

Are Hiibner’s binonuals of 1800 nomina nuda?—Granting for the 
sake of argument that Hubner’s Tentamen is to be accepted as a 
published document in nomenclature and also that the binomials, ex- 
ample, Nereis Polymnia, are to be accepted as publication of mono- 
typic genera, the question arises whether these binomials are available 
in nomenclature as of the date 1806. 

The point is to be emphasized that the question at issue is primarily 
one of zoological nomenclature, not one of the nomenclature of 
Lepidoptera. For instance, potentially each one of the 107 [or at least 
102] names in question, if admitted as of generic value in the 
sense of the Code, might theoretically jeopardize the identical name, 
of later date, in some group other than Lepidoptera. Whether any 
such case exists, or not, is immaterial in the argument. The funda- 
mental principle is that names in Lepidoptera must be available, 
understandable, and traceable, from the standpoint of workers in other 
groups if they are to enjoy status of availability in Lepidoptera. Com- 
pare, for instance, Hiibner’s name Amocba vs. Amocba Bory; also 
FHamadryas Hubner, 1206, vs. Hamadryas 1832, 1840, 1850, and 1864. 

The point is rather striking that in two votes taken by the Com- 
mission, every vote but one cast by the zoologists who are not special- 
ists in Lepidoptera was against the Tentamen. Here is a practical 
demonstration that Hubner’s Tentamen presents difficulties which call 
for analysis. 

Thus, the first name in question in Hubner, 1806, is Nereis. There 
is also a Nereis Linn., 1758a, 654, so that the Hibnerian name is a 
dead homonym, if interpreted as generic. But assume that Nereis 
1758 bore the date of 1810; the zoologist who deals with the Poly- 
chaeta would have to determine whether Nereis 1806 were a nomen 
nudum or not; his one clue is “ fPolymnia,” to which Hubner gives 
no reference as to author, date, or publication. It is, however, 
noticed that Hubner cites Nereis as I Papiliones, | nymphales; and 
possibly it might occur to the worker in Polychaeta to examine 
Sherborn’s 1902 index, where he would discover a Papilio polymnia 
Linn., 1758a, 466; following this clue, it is found that Linné classi- 
fied polymnia not as Nymphales (p. 472) as did Hubner, but as Heli- 
cont (p. 465-467) ; conceivably, the worker might have time to trace 
up later publications by Htibner, to solve his terms genus (=species), 
coitus (=genus), stirpes (=supergeneric name), etc., and to trace 
the literature on polymnia, but this is, at least, open to doubt. 





NO. 4 OPINIONS QI TO 97 29 


To admit the Hubnerian (1806) combination “ Nereis Polymnia’”’ 
as available, as of 1806, as a generic plus specific name, means to admit 
107 [or at least 102] combinations of essentially like status, and 
potentially to serve notice on zoologists in groups other than Lepidop- 
tera that they must familiarize themselves with the literature of 
Lepidoptera in case any one of these debatably generic names com- 
petes for priority with names in their own groups. Is this reasonable? 

The Secretary is assured by specialists in Lepidoptera that there is 
no difficulty in tracing these Hubnerian names. Commissioner Jor- 
dan’s report, however, cites 17 specific names which, however clear to 
specialists in Lepidoptera, would present some difficulty to specialists 
in other groups. 

On basis of the assurances given by specialists in Lepidoptera, the 
Secretary is not prepared to dispute their claim, but he reverts to 
the point that the document was intended only for specialists in Lepi- 
doptera (not for the zoological profession), and it can be only through 
special or esoteric information that the Hutbnerian (1806) names 
can be interpreted as monotypic genera each based upon a definitely 
recognizably published species; in other words, to zoologists of 
other groups these names, as of 1806, are nomuina nuda. 

The data in this case were submitted to the Commission in Secre- 
tary’s C. L. No. 63, with request for suggestions and an informal 
vote. The vote stood: for acceptance, 2 Commissioners ; for rejection, 
g Commissioners. 

Additional data were submitted in Secretary’s C. L. No. 97, with 
request for formal vote. The formal vote stands: 9 for rejection, I 
for acceptance. 

The final draft of the Opinion is submitted herewith for approval 
to the Commissioners in Secretary’s C. L. No. 100, with recommenda- 
tion that the Commission adopt as Opinion the following: 

SumMMaAry.—Hubner’s Tentamen, 1806, was obviously prepared, 
essentially as a manifolded manuscript, or as a proof sheet (Cf. 
Opinion. 87), for examination and opinion by a restricted group of 
experts, 7. ¢e., in Lepidoptera, and not for general distribution as a 
record in zoology. Accordingly, the conclusion that it was published 
in 1806 is subject to debate. Even if the premise be admitted that 
it was published in 1806, the point is debatable whether the contained 
binomials should be construed as generic plus specific names. [ven 
if it be admitted that the binomials represent combinations of generic 
plus specific names they are essentially nomina nuda (as of the date in 
question) since authors who do not possess esoteric information in 
regard to them are unable definitely to interpret them without refer- 


30 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


ence to later literature. If published with more definite data at later 
dates, these names have their status in regard to availability as of 
their date of such republication. 

Opinion written by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by eleven (11) Commissioners: \Apstein, 
Bather, Handlirsch, Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K), Kolbe, 
Loennberg, Monticelli, Stiles, Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by two (2) Commissioners: Neveu- 
Lemaire, Skinner. 

Not voting, four (4) Commissioners: Chapman, Dabbene, Hartert, 
Stejneger. 


Norte By SECRETARY.—During the reading of the proof of Opinion 
97, application to validate Hubner’s Tentamen as of January 1, 1806, 
under Suspension of the Rules, has reached the Secretary’s office. 
See notice in the scientific journals. 


ni sili —— 





SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 
VOLUME 73, NUMBER 5 


COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


TAAN INSTI 
Cane, iN TUN 
OPINIONS 98 TO 104 ~ 





(PUBLICATION 2973) 


CITY OF WASHINGTON 
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 
SEPTEMBER 19, 1928 








SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 


VOLUME 73, NUMBER 5 


OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


OPINIONS 98 TO 104 Vi 





(PUBLICATION 2973) 


CITY OF WASHINGTON 
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 
SEPTEMBER 19, 1928 

















tet ae 
1 a j 
A THO, 
“a ee ia ae ce en ae 
a ig aN ; f 
{ i 
on 
a) £ oye 


The Lord Baltimore Press 


BALTIMORE, MD., U. 8. A. 


il 








OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


OPINIONS 98 TO 104 


OPINION 98 
BRAUER AND BERGENSTAMM 


SUMMARY.—Rigidly construed, Brauer and Bergenstamm (1889 to 1894) 
did not fix the types for the older generic names, except in the cases where 
they distinctly state that the species mentioned is the type of the genus. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Dr. Charles H. T. Townsend submitted the 
following case for opinion: 


Friedrich Brauer and Julius Edlen von Bergenstamm published in the Denk- 
schriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, from 1889 to 1894, 
an elaborate work entitled “ Vorarbeiten zu einer Monographie der Muscaria 
schizometopa (exclusive Anthomyidae),” in four parts, comprising a total of 
494 royal quarto pages and 11 royal quarto plates containing some 310 faithful 
drawings representing fully 300 distinct genera, the whole illustrating the 
authors’ conceptions of the genera treated. This is a monumental work wholly 
unapproached in character by any work ever published on the Muscoidea. It 
treats the fauna of the world, giving the results of an exhaustive intensive 
study of external adult characters. The authors went as far as it 1s possible 
to go on external adult characters alone. Synopses of groups and genera 
embodying full diagnoses are given in both German and Latin. In each case 
the generic diagnosis is accompanied by one or more specific names, usually 
only one, and in that case immediately following the generic name, indicating 
the species which the authors employed to typify and illustrate their concept 
of a genus. In some cases the word type follows the specific name, but in most 
cases it is omitted. The word type, when it occurs, may in some cases be held 
as referring either to the type specimen of the species cited or the species itself 
in the sense of a genotype designation. In some cases the specific name imme- 
diately following a genus represents a species not originally included, but in a 
few of these cases an originally included species is also cited in or after the 
diagnosis, either following or preceding the generic name. It seems plain that 
in every case the intention of the authors, in citing the specific name or names, 
was to designate either the type species alone, or several typical species includ- 
ing the type species thereby fixing their conception of the genus. 

The same authors published in the Verhandlungen der k. k. zoologisch-botani- 
schen Gesellschaft in Wien, in 1893, a paper with exactly the same title as the 


SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS, VOL. 73, No. 5 


2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


above, comprising 79 octavo pages, referring in a footnote to the three parts 
of the above-cited quarto work so far published at that time. In this work 
the authors gave synopses of the European genera and groups, in Gerrnan, 
similar in plan to those given in the quarto work but in each case they preceded 
with the word “ Type” the specific name. This paper is practically a repetition 
of the European faunal element in the quarto work. 

It is plainly evident that the above quarto work was intended by its authors 
as a practically complete elucidation of the muscoid genera of the world known 
in collections up to that time, and it does in reality constitute such an elucida- 
tion. It is evident also that all possible consistent adherence to the generic con- 
cepts of this work will greatly advance the interests of muscoid taxonomy by 
facilitating the fixation of the numerous genera. If such adherence is not possi- 
ble to obtain, certain genotype designations published subsequently to the above 
quarto work will hold, resulting in an entirely different interpretation of many 
of the genera treated. 

In view of these facts, does the Commission rule that in all cases in said 
quarto work where a single originally included species immediately follows 
the generic name, the species in question shall be taken as the genotype; and 
that in all cases where the species immediately following the generic name is 
not an originally included species, the genotype shall be the first originally in- 
cluded species, if any, cited in connection with the generic diagnosis; provided 
in all cases that no conflicting valid genotype fixation had previously been 
effected ? 


Discusston.—The foregoing case was submitted to Commissoner 
Karl Jordan for special study. At the meeting of the Commission in 
Budapest, August 30, 1927, he presented a verbal report discussing 
in detail the various documents involved. 

He also presented the following written report: 


In this work, which is preliminary to a more extensive work, the authors give 
diagnoses of all genera of these flies known to them. They quote behind the 
name of the genus usually one species, rarely two, and still more rarely no 
species. Nothing is said as to whether these species are meant to be exam- 
ples or genotypes. 

The genera should be grouped in three categories for the purpose of arriy- 
ing at an opinion about the question “ genotype” versus “example.” 

(1) New genera.—If only one species is mentioned, this must be accepted as 
genotype; if two are mentioned, one of them is the genotype. 

(2) Old genera where a species is distinctly stated to be “ Typus” of the 
genus.—In many cases B. and B. say “Typus,” but it is clear that in these 
cases the addition of the word Typus means that B. and B. have examined the 
type [specimen] of the sfecies. 

(3) Old genera where one or two species are quoted without one of them 
being distinctly designated type of the genus——TIn these cases the quoted species 
are merely “ examples.”’ In the later work, 1893, where for each genus a geno- 
type is given, the genotypes are not always the same species as those quoted in 
the preliminary work under consideration; evidently B. and B. were not yet 
quite clear about the concept genotype when they published their preliminary 
studies. 


NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 3 


In summary he found that, rigidly construed, Brauer and Bergen- 
stamm did not fix the types for the older generic names, except in the 
cases where they distinctly state that the species mentioned is the type 
of the genus. 

The findings were unanimously approved by the 8 Commissioners 
and Alternates present, namely: Apstein, Bather, Hartert, Jordan 
(K.), Muesebeck, Rothschild, Stejneger, and Stiles. 

Later, the case with Commissioner Jordan’s conclusion was sub- 
mitted in Circular Letter No. 127 to all absent Commissioners. The 
final vote stands as follows: 

Opinion concurred in by fifteen (15) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Hartert, Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), 
Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger, Stiles, 
Stone, Warren, and two (2) Alternates, Muesebeck and Rothschild: 
Motal 17. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting two (2) Commissioners: Handlirsch, Ishikawa. 


4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


OPINION 99 


Endamoeba Letpy, 1879, vs. Entamoeba CASAGRANDI and 
BARBAGALLO, 1895 


SUMMARY.—EFnitamocba 1895, with blattae as type by subsequent (1912) 
designation, is absolute synonym of Endamoeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300, type 
blattae, and invalidates /:ntamoeba 1895, type by subsequent (1913) designa- 
tion hominis = coli. 


STATEMENT OF CASE—Dr. W. H. Taliaferro presents the follow- 
ing case for Opinion: 


Should the two generic names Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, and Entamoeba Casa- 
grandi & Barbagallo, 1895, both be retained or should they be considered 
homonyms?’ It is impossible to decide this question from the existing Inter- 
national Rules. The spirit of Article 35, a-e, would point to the conclusion that 
they were homonyms, but Article 36 (recommendations) would allow the 
interpretation that both should be retained. In the past, authors have disagreed 
in regard to this question. Dobell (1919, “ The Amoebae Living in Man”), 
for example, advocates the retention of both names whereas others consider 
them homonyms. 


Discusston.—This is a case upon which legitimate difference of 
opinion may arise. It has both its academic and its practical aspects. 

The first point at issue is whether Endamoeba and Entamoeba are 
homonyms, or whether they come under the first recommendation of 
Article 36 which reads as follows: 


It is well to avoid the introduction of new generic names which differ from 
generic names already in use only in termination or in a slight variation in 
spelling which might lead to confusion. But when once introduced, such names 
are not to be rejected on this account. Examples: Picus, Pica; Polyodus, 
Polyodon, Polyodonta, Polyodontas, Polyodontis. 


Neither Leidy, 1879, nor Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895 and 1897, 
gave the derivation of their generic name. Accordingly, the conceiv- 
able possibilities as to etymology seem to lie in recommendations e 
and k of Article 8 which read as follows: 


The following words may be taken as generic names: 

e. Greek or Latin derivatives expressing diminution, comparison, resemblance, 
or possession. Examples: Dolium, Doliolum; Strongylus, Eustrongylus; 
Limax, Limacella, Limacia, Limacina, Limacites, Limacula; Lingula, Lingulella, 
Lingule pis, Lingulina, Lingulops, Lingulopsis; Neomenia, Proneomenia; Buteo, 
Archibuteo; Gordius, Paragordius, Polygordius. 

k. Words formed by an arbitrary combination of letters. Examples: Neda, 
Clanculus, Salifa, Torix. 





= 


NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 5 


In view of the history of the genus Amoeba it would be difficult to 
assume that recommendation & obtains in this case. 

In attempting to derive the two names from the Greek, it seems not 
absolutely inconceivable that the authors might have united the Greek 
words ev and dyoBy, Leidy using a d and Casagrandi & Barbagallo 
using a ¢ for sake of euphony. If this possibility were actually the 
fact, the case would be somewhat similar to Microdon and Mikrodon, 
but more similar to Taentarhynchus Weinl., 1858a, and Taeniorhyn- 
chus Arribalzaga, 1891, and etymologically [not necessarily taxo- 
nomically] the words would be not only synonyms but, if used for 
two different things, virtually homonyms. 

Another, certainly more probable and more scholastic line of argu- 
ment would be that while both names are based on dpoiBy, Leidy 
derived his Greek prefix from évéov and Casagrandi & Barbagallo 
derived their prefix from évr0s, 

Professor J. M. Campbell, of the Catholic University of America, 
has kindly furnished the Secretary with the following memorandum 
in regard to these two words: 


éydov, seen in our ordinary lexica, is derived from év + Indo-European -dom. 
‘in the house” (-dom. cf. Latin domus). 


‘ 


Its original signification is 
évrés, of our lexica, is derived from é€v + Indo-European -tos (meaning 
“from’’). Its original signification is “in from,” 7@.e¢., “ from > within.” 
The Indo-European -tos (“from”) is seen in the Sanscrit mukha-tah 
(“from the mouth”) and in the Latin caelitus (“from heaven”’). 
Both é€vdov and év7ds, according to Boisacq’s “ Dictionnaire étymologique de la 
Langue gréque” (Paris, 1910), are now synonymous, signifying “ a l’intérieur.” 
Their early confusion of meaning is indicated by the career of €vdoy in the 
dialects. In Cretan, Megarian, and Syracusan, €véov became written é€vdds on 
analogy with é€v76s. Such an analogical form probably arose from the approxi- 
mate similarity in spelling of @vdov and évrés and, what is of more interest to 


us, from their similarity in meaning. 


Accordingly, endon and entos are now synonyms and from this 
point of view Endamoeba and Entamoeba are words of identical 
meaning but of slightly different etymology in their historic develop- 
ment, in that both of them have in common the Greek words ev and 
apo.By but differ in the Indo-European dom and tos. 

Words of similar derivations as respects the end and ent are well 
known in terminology in zoology and are often interchangeable. For 
instance, endoplasm is interchangeable with entoplasm, and endoderm 
with entoderm. Not only would the concurrent use of these terms in 
different senses be confusing but zoologists have come to use them as 
absolute synonyms. 


6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL Is 


Turning now to the more practical and less academic side of the 
question we are faced by the following taxonomic situation. 

Endamoeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300, has for its monotype Asmoeba 
blattae. The generic name was emended by Chatton, 1910, Ann. Zool. 
exp. gén., 282,’ and 1912, Bull. Soc. zool. France, p. 110, to read Enta- 
moeba, and by Chatton and Lalung, 1912, BSPe, p. 142, in the same 
sense. Accordingly, there is a generic name Endamoeba and one Enta- 
moeba with the same species (FE. blattae) as type. 

Entamoeba” Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895c, p. 18, contained 
Amoeba coli and A. blattae without designation of type. Apparently 
the first type designation in words was by Brumpt (1913, p. 21) as 
Entamoeba honinis which is Amoeba coli renamed. It will be noted 
that the type designation is three years later than Chatton’s emendation 
of Endamoeba to Entamoeba. It is also clear that Chatton (1912) 
quotes the generic name Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1897, 
and invites attention to the fact that as early as 1910 he (Chatton,’ 
AZeg, 282) had shown that protozoologists had erroneously attributed 
the parentage of the genus Entamoeba to Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 
1897. Accordingly, for Chatton Endamoeba 1879 and Entamoeba 
1897 were simple orthographic variants and it is not at all impossible 
(renaming and cf. Opinion 6) to construe his papers (1910, 282, and 
1912, 110) as a designation of blattae as the type of Entamoeba Casa- 
grandi & Barbagallo, 1897. This point of view receives support in the 
fact that Chatton eliminated EF. coli from Entamoeba and made it 
type of Loschia. If this point of view be accepted, Endamoeba 1879 
and Entamoeba 1895 are to be interpreted as having the same geno- 
type, on the premise that Chatton in 1912 determined the type of 
Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo as blattae while Brumpt did not 
make his determination (hominis=coli) until 1913. 

We are further faced by the complication that some authors con- 
sider the species blattae and coli as congeneric, others as belonging to 
two different genera in the same family, and still others as belonging 
to two different subgenera in the same genus. 





*It is obvious that Casagrandi & Barbagallo were discussing F. coli rather 
than E. blattae, and that they cited only incidentally the latter species. To take 
E. blattae as type of their Entamoeba is theoretically possible under the Rules, 
but is contraindicated by Art. 30, n, p, q, t, also by the obvious fact that Casa- 
grandi & Barbagallo had FE. coli especially in mind. The difficulty is solved 
equally well by considering Entamoeba a variant of Endamoeba, as Chatton 
(1910) did, before Chatton & Lalung, 1912, eliminated coli to Léschia. 

*“ Entamoeba Leidy, 1879” .... ““Cest a tort que Doflein (1909) attribue 
la paternité du genre Entamoeba a Casagrandi & Barbagallo (1897).” 


NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 7 


The case has already produced considerable confusion in literature 
and it seems obvious that unless the name Entamoeba is definitely 
suppressed both the nomenclatorial and the taxonomic status of the 
species which come into consideration will become even more con- 
fused. 

Accordingly, 

(a) since the original authors did not give the derivation of the two 
names in question, 

(b) since Chatton (1910, Ann. Zool. exp. gén., 282, and 1912, Bull. 
Soc. zool. France, p. 115) interpreted the two names as orthographic 
variants, hence identical in origin, and therefore homonyms, 

(c) since Chatton’s action appears to be the earliest interpretation 
available to the Secretary and therefore has priority, 

(d) since (under Opinion 6) Chatton’s paper (1912, Bull. Soc. 
zool. France, p. 113) is to be interpreted as designating blattae as type 
of “ Entamoeba” 1897 (=1895), [emendation of Endamoeba, but 
obviously construed as identical with Entamoeba], 

(e) since the concurrent use of the two generic names as closely 
allied separate units has already given rise to a confusion which prom- 
ises to increase rather than to decrease, 

(f) since zoologists are accustomed to use words of similar deri- 
vation as respects the end and ent interchangeably, and 

(g) since, conceivably, Entamoeba and Endamoeba might have 
been derived from év and apoB) with d and ¢ for sake of euphony, 
or still more probably, and more scholastically, derived from €vdov 
or évros and doin, the one or the other adverb being used as seemed 
the better at the moment, whether for euphony’s sake or for other 
reason (that they have the same meaning, etc.) and since they are 
therefore of the same meaning and practically, though not academic- 
ally, of the same ultimate derivation é€v (+ tos or + dom) and dpoiBn, 
the Secretary recommends that the name Entamoeba 1895, either with 
type hominis=coli as definitely designated by Brumpt, 1913, p. 21, 
or with blattae as accepted by Chatton and Lalung (1912, 111) and 
as implied by Chatton (1910, 282), be definitely invalidated by Enda- 
moeba Leidy, 1879a, p. 300, type blattae, irrespective of the point 
whether the type of Entamoeba be considered blattae or coll. 

The foregoing Opinion was submitted to vote by mail and carried 
as follows: 

Opinion concurred in by twelve (12) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), Kolbe, Loennberg, Monticelli, Neveu- 
Lemaire, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone, Warren. 


8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Opinion dissented from by three (3) Commissioners: Bather, 
Handlirsch, Jordan (K.). 

Not voting, two (2) Commissioners: Chapman, Hartert. 

The points raised in the dissenting votes were sent to all Com- 
missioners and a new ballot was taken with the following result: 

Concur with the original Opinion, eight (8) Commissioners ; Hand- 
lirsch, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Neveu-Lemaire, Monticelli, 
Stiles, Stone, and Warren. 

Dissent from original Opinion, three (3) Commissioners: Apstein, 
jather, and Horvath. 

Not voting, six (6) Commissioners: Chapman, Dabbene, Hartert, 
Kolbe, Loennberg, and Stejneger. 

All papers were tabled until the Budapest meeting of the Commis- 
sion. Commissioner K, Jordan was appointed a committee of one to 
restudy the case for the Commission. He reported as follows: 


Endamocba Leidy, 1879 with blattae as only species. 

Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, with two species, blattae and coli, 
none being designated as genotype. 

When Casagrandi and Barbagallo proposed Entamoeba as a new genus they 
were unaware of the existence of the name Endamoeba Leidy, 1870. 

Which spelling of the name should be used? The question can be decided 
on nomenclatorial grounds and on philological grounds: 


A. NOMENCLATORIAL CONSIDERATIONS 


In 1912 Chatton separated from Entamoeba the species coli as genotype of 
his new genus Loschia, leaving blattae as only original species in Entamoeba. 
As nobody had dealt, nomenclatorially, with Entamoeba prior to 1912, Chat- 
ton’s action made blattae the type of Entamoeba. In tI912 the two concepts 
stood like this: 

Endamoeba Leidy, 1879, type blattae. 

Entamoeba Casagrandi & Barbagallo, 1895, type blattae. That is to say, the 
second name falls as a synonym of Endamoeba. 


B. PHILOLoGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 


In zoology the prefixes Ento- and Endo- are frequently interchanged. In 
zoological terminology they are located as being identical. They come under the 
category of names of which the spelling in Latin varied to a slight extent and 
which the Rules of Nomenclature do not accept as different, such as auctum- 
nalis and autumnalis (p. 87 of Rules). Entamoeba is philologically the same 
as Endamoeba. r 

On motion and second, the foregoing report was adopted by unani- 
mous vote of those present, namely: Apstein, Bather, Hartert, He- 
dicke, Jordan (K.), Muesebeck, Rothschild, Stejneger, and Stiles, and 


authorized to be published. 


NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 9 


OPINION 100 
SUSPENSION OF RULES, Spirifer AND Syringothyris 


SUMMARY.—Under Suspension of the Rules the genotype of Spirifer 
Sowerby, 1816, is fixed as 4nomia striata Martin, and the genotype of Syringo- 
thyris Winchell, 1863, is fixed as Syringothyris typa Winchell (= Spirifer 
carteri Hall). 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Miss Helen M. Muir Wood has submitted 
the following case for opinion under Suspension of the Rules : 


The genus Spirifer was first named and described by James Sowerby, 
Feb. 1, 1816, in Mineral Conchology, Vol. 11, p. 41. The only species mentioned 
is “ Spirifer cuspidatus”’ [Anomia cuspidata of W. Martin, 1798, Trans. Linn. 
Soc., Vol. 4, p. 45]. In his discussion of Spirifer Sowerby writes: “this genus 
will comprehend nearly all the shells retained as Terebratula by Lamarck which 
have a triangular foramen and not a perforation at the apex of the beak as the 
character of that genus requires. The several individuals in which I have dis- 
covered spiral appendages bear a considerable affinity to each other... .. Zs 
He adds in a footnote, “I gave a paper sometime since to the Linnean Society 
on the construction of this tubular cartilage which almost fills the shells... . ” 

im . I conceive that all those in Martin’s division of Anomitae d. d. 
(Martin’s outlines and p. 243) which he describes as having both valves convex 
and a large trigonal foramen belong to this genus and also perhaps those of 
his next section with a small foramen....” [This refers to Petrificata 
Derbiensia of Martin, 1800, p. 9, and includes the following species of Martin: 
first, Anomites trigonalis, triangularis, striatus, subconicus, cuspidatus; 
secondly, acutus, rotundus, glaber, resupinatus, and lineatus.] 

In December 1814 and February 1815 James Sowerby had read a paper 
before the Linnean Society entitled “Some Account of the Spiral tubes or 
ligaments in the genus Terebratula of Lamarck as observed in several species 
of fossil shells.” This paper which did not appear in print until 1818 (Trans. 
Linn. Soc., Vol. 12, p. 514) contained an account and figures of the spires in 
Anomia, Terebratula striata of Martin (Petrificata Derbiensia, 1809, pl. 23, 
figs. I and 2) and is referred to in the footnote in the Mineral Conchology. 
Sowerby states, p. 515: “I suspect Anomia cuspidata .... with the beak of 
the perforated valve lengthened and reverse may have a similar construction 
within as well as Anomia subconica of Martin tab. 47.” A footnote on the 
same page, added at the time of publication, referring to Anomia cuspidata, 
states “ Figured since the reading of this paper as Spirifer cuspidata in Mineral 
Conchology tab. 120.” 

From the preceding it follows (1) that Spirifer was neither named nor 
diagnosed before February 1816 (Min. Conch.), (2) that the diagnostic char- 
acter by which the genus was distinguished from Terebratula was the shape of 
the foramen, (3) that the possession of spires by species so distinguished was 
inferred in the case of Spirifer cuspidatus, (4) that the only species actually 
named as Spirifer was Anomia cuspidata Martin, which therefore is the geno- 
type (monotypic). 


10 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Konig in 1825 (Icones Foss.) proposed the name Trigonotreta for a miscel- 
laneous collection of forms including species now assigned to Spirifer and 
Orthis. He mentions resupinatus, cuspidatus, minimus, in his text but figures 
and describes only stokesii and speciosus. 

Dalman in 1828 (K. Svensk. Vetensk. Acad. Handl., p. 99) referred Spirifer 
cuspidatus to Cyrtia with Cyrtia exporrecta as one of the syntypes, subse- 
quently lectotype. Von Buch in 1840 (Mém. Soc. géol. France, sér. I) and 
M’Coy in 1844 (Syn. Carb. Limestone Fossils of Ireland) referred cuspidatus 
to genus Cyrtia Dalman. M’Coy considered Cyrtia to be a subgenus of Spirifer. 
He describes Spirifer striatus as being “very well known on the continent as 
the species in which Mr. Sowerby first discovered spiral appendages,” a state- 
ment which may have been correct but had no bearing on the nomenclature. 

King in 1850 (Permian Fossils) quoted Spirifer Sow., 1815 = Cyrtia Dalman, 
1828, and stated: “ This genus is typified by the Anomites cuspidatus of Martin 

. as the typical species Anomites exporrectus Wahlenberg of Dalman’s 
Cyrtia agrees with type of Sowerby’s Spirifer in form .... I am led to as- 
sume that these genera are one and the same....” He revived the genus 
Trigonotreta Konig as = Spirifer auctt., but gave no type and did not refer to 
Spirifer striatus. 

If any choice had existed before, the question of genotype of Spirifer was 
thus definitely settled. 

Confusion was first introduced by Davidson in 1853 (Mon. Foss. Brach., 
Vol. I) who in discussing the genotype of Spirifer stated that Sowerby in- 
tended Anomia striata as his type and not cuspidatus of whose internal charac- 
ter he was not quite certain. He also quoted in support of his views M’Coy, 
1844, and the alleged fact that King had at first taken cuspidatus as type of 
Spirifer and later abandoned it. 

In 1857 Davidson (Mon. Foss. Brach., Vol. 2, p. 44) described cuspidatus 
as belonging to “ Spirifera” and not to the subgenus Cyrtia, and also quoted 
Spirifera striata as the type of the genus “ Spirifera.” 

In spite of Davidson, Meek & Hayden, 1864 (Smithsonian Contributions to 
Knowledge, Vol. 14, p. 18) accepted Spirifer cuspidatus as the genotype of 
Spirifer and revived Trigonotreta Konig, 1825 for Spirifer striatus and related 
species. The genotype of Trigonotreta Konig is, however, T. stokesii which is 
not synonymous with Spirifer striatus. 

Meek in 1865 (Palaeontology of the Upper Missouri, p. 19) accepts cuspidatus 
as genotype of Spirifer and took Spirifer striatus as genotype of Trigonotreta 
Konig. This is inadmissible since this species was not mentioned by Konig. 

In 1863 A. Winchell described his genus Syringothyris (Proc. Acad. Nat. 
Sei. Philadelphia, Vol. VII, p. 6) with genotype S. typa Winchell. 

In 1867 Davidson and Meek, in Geol. Mag., Vol. IV, pointed out the simi- 
larity in structure of Spirifer cuspidatus with Syringothyris of Winchell. 

King in 1868 (Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist., 4th ser., Vol. 2, p. 1) assigned 
“ cuspidatus”’ to genus Syringothyris and assumed its identity with S. typa of 
Winchell. 

In 1877 Dall (“ Index to Names which have been applied to the Subdivisions 
of the Class Brachiopoda,” Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 8) stated correctly that 
Spirifer cuspidatus, the sole species mentioned by Sowerby in Min. *Conch., 
1816, after his definition of Spivifer, should be the genotype. In spite of this 
he was in favor of retaining Spirifer striatus as the type of Spirifer and of 





NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 I 


placing cuspidatus in the genus Syringothyris of Winchell. Under heading 
Trigonotreta, Dall said “ T. stokesti Kon. 1. c. selected as type.” 

Davidson, 1880 (Mon. Foss. Brach., Vol. 4, p. 278) described cuspidatus as 
belonging to the genus Syringothyris of Winchell 1863 and placed it in the 
synonymy of S. typa Winchell. 

In 1890 Schuchert (oth Ann. Rep. State Geol. New York, p. 30) distinguished 
Syringothyris cuspidata from S. typa but accepted it as belonging to Syringo- 
thyris and not Spirifer. S. typa he showed to be synonymous with S. carteri 
of Hall, which, having priority, became the genotype of Syringothyris. 

Anomia striata has been accepted as genotype of Spirifer by Hall & Clarke 
(Paleontology, New York, Vol. 8, pt. 2, p. 7, 1894), Schuchert (Bull. U. S. 
Geol. Surv., 1897, p. 380), S. S. Buckman (Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 1908, 
Vol. 64, p. 29) and by others. 

Hall and Clarke after a brief review of the facts stated that “an inversion 
of the terms could only induce lamentable disorder in nomenclature.’ They 
regarded Trigonotreta as a precise synonym of Spirifer. Buckman quoted 
Trigonotreta, genotype stokesi, for a group of species distinct from Spirifer 
striatus. 

In 1913 F. J. North (Geol. Mag., Vol. X, p. 394), among other statements 
inconsistent with the data as here given, says that J. Sowerby in 1815 founded 
his genus Spirifer with Anomia striata as his genotype. 

In 1919, J. Allan Thomson (Geol. Mag., Vol. VI, p. 371) draws attention 
to the fact that the generic name Spirifer is wrongly used for the group 
including Anomites striatus Martin, and that it should be restricted to the group 
including Anomites cuspidatus of Martin, and should replace Syringothyris 
Winchell. He is, however, in favor of retaining the genus Spirifer with geno- 
type A. striatus contrary to the laws of nomenclature. 

In consideration of these facts it is asked that the Law of Priority be sus- 
pended in the case of Spirifer Sowerby, and that it be fixed with Anomuia 
(or Terebratula) striata Martin as genotype, leaving Syringothyris with Spiri- 
fer carteri Hall as genotype and including Syringothyris cuspidata (Martin). 


Ditscussion.—Commissioner Bather reports: 


I have checked the references in Miss Wood's statement of the case, and |] 
find that 

(1) According to the rules the genotype of Spirifer is Anomia cuspidata 
Martin; 

(2) According to the rules Syringothyris is a synonym of Spirifer; 

(3) All writers of importance for the past 70 years, in conscious opposition 
to the rules, take Anomia striata Martin as genotype of Spirifer, and maintain 
Syringothyris with genotype Spirifer carteri Hall or a synonym thereof. 

To avoid the “confusion that would be introduced into two well-known 
Brachiopod genera, one of which is widely distributed with a large number of 
species, I propose as the opinion of the Commission: 

That the Rules be suspended in the case of Spirifer and Syringothyris so that 
the former may be fixed with genotype dnomia striata Martin and the latter 
with genotype Syringothyris typa Winchell (= Spirifer carteri Hall). 


TZ SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL 7B 


In accordance with the prescribed routine, notice that Suspension of 
the Rules has been asked in these cases has been published in the fol- 
lowing journals : 

Nature, No. 2813, Vol. 112, p. 473, Sept. 29, 1923. 

Science, No. 1508, Vol. 58, p. 422, Nov. 23, 1923. 

Zoologischer Anzeiger, Vol. 58 (Heft 1-2), p. 55, Dec. 18, 1923. 

Momtore Zoologico Italiano, Anno 35, No. 2-3, 1924. 

As no expression of opinion against Suspension has been received by 
the Secretary to date (one year from publication in three journals) 
the Secretary calls for vote on the Opinion as prepared by Commis- 
sioner Bather, namely, that under Suspension of the Rules the geno- 
type of Spirifer Sowerby, 1816, be fixed as Anomia striata Martin, 
and the genotype of Syringothyris Winchell, 1863, be fixed as Syrin- 
gothyris typa Winchell (=Spirifer cartert Hall). 

At the Budapest meeting of the Commission, Commissioner Bather 
was appointed a committee of one to restudy this case, and on August 
30 he presented the following report : 

Under Suspension of the Rules, the genotype of Spirifer Sowerby, 1816, is 
fixed as Anomia striata Martin instead of Anomia cuspidata Martin. This 
action makes it unnecessary to regard Syringothyris as a synonym of Spirifer 
even on the assumption that its genotype, Syringothyris typa, 1s congeneric 
with Anomuia cuspidata. ; 

After considerable discussion and on motion and second the con- 
clusions were unanimously adopted by the 8 Commissioners and 
Alternates present, namely: Apstein, Bather, Hartert, Jordan (K.), 
Muesebeck, Rothschild, Stejneger, and Stiles. 

The foregoing data were submitted in Circular Letter No. 129 to 
the absent Commissioners and the final vote stands as follows: 

Opinion concurred in by seventeen (17) Commissioners and Alter- 
nates: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, 
Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Loennberg, Muesebeck, Mon- 
ticelli, Rothschild, Skinner, Stejneger, Stiles, and Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting four (4) Commissioners: Dabbene, Ishikawa, Neveu- 
Lemaire, and Stone. 





NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 I 


OPINION 101 


NoMENCLATORIAL STATUS OF DANILEWSKY, “ CONTRIBUTION A 
L’ETUDE DE LA MICROBIOSE MALARIQUE ”” IN ANNALES DE L’INSTITUT 
PasTEuR, 1891, VOL. 5, PAGES 758-782. 

SUMMARY.—The technical Latin designations used by Danilewsky, 1891, 
Annales de l'Institut Pasteur, Vol. 5 (12), pp. 758-782, are not in harmony 


with the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature and are therefore 
not subject to citation or the Law of Priority on basis of said publication. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Ernest Hartman, School of Hygiene and 
Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, has submitted 
the following case for Opinion: 


In looking over the paper of Danilewsky, “ Contribution a l'étude de la 
microbiose malarique” in Annales de I’Institut Pasteur, r&891, Vol. 5, pages 
758-782, I am unable to interpret his naming under the present rules of the 
Commission. I refer this paper to the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature for an interpretation of the names therein or for elimination as 
a source of zoological names. 


Discussion.—The Contribution under consideration was published 
at a time when there existed very divergent views regarding the mala- 
rial parasites and many articles on this subject were written by per- 
sons who were obviously not entirely at home in respect to the pre- 
vailing conceptions of genera, species, and varieties, and who were 
unfamiliar with the principles and practices of zoological nomencla- 
ture. 

Some of these authors were obviously under the impression that 
zoological nomenclature consisted in using I, 2, 3, or 4 Latin names 
as designations of organisms, but they evidently did not use the words 
in the sense of the system of nomenclature proposed by Linnaeus 
and adopted by zoologists and botanists. I‘urthermore, some of the 
zoologists who published on this subject either did not consider them- 
selves governed by zoological rules or were unfamiliar with them. 
The result is that the nomenclature of the parasites of malaria in man 
and birds represents one of the most confusing chapters in the entire 
history of zoological nomenclature. To straighten out the difficulties 
authors familiar with the principles and practices of zoological no- 
menclature have obviously endeavored to interpret the rules as applied 
to this field with the utmost consideration for their colleagues who 
were less familiar with nomenclatorial customs. 


14 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 7s 


The following extract from the Contribution under consideration 
will serve to give a conception of Danilewsky’s viewpoint : 


(P. 762) Nous allons passer maintenant a l'étude du microbe de l’infection 
malarique aigué. Il doit etre distingué de celui de la forme chronique. Tous 
les microbes de nature animale vivant et se développant a l’intérieur des cellules 
sont ordinairement appelés cytozoaires, cyto-parasites ou cyto-microbes. Ces 
noms indiquent le lieu ott ils se trouvent. En me conformant a cette nomen- 
clature, j’ai proposé de remplacer la dénomination du plasmodium malarique de 
homme, Haemamaeba, en celle de Cytamaeba, Mais comme chez les oiseaux 
le meme parasite, n’étant pas mobile, n’a pas de caractére amiboide, ce nom 
d’amaeba ne peut lui etre appliqué. Aussi, et surtout a cause de la propriété 
fondamentale du microbe de donner des spores, je l’appellerai Cytosporon 
malariae.’ 

(P. 780) Au point de vue de I’hypothése unitaire de l’infection malarique on 
pourrait proposer le rapprochement suivant des diverses formes du parasite, 
sans entrer pour cela dans la discussion de sa place dans le systéme zoologique : 


: Cytozoon praecox {(a) Haemamaeba-Cytamaeba 
Cytozoon malariae ; ‘ 
te aes s. Cytosporon il (b) Cytosporon avium 
3 Polymitus (c) 1 Haemogregarina avium 
avium f 5 : Aen 
Laverania (e) Laverania hominis 


Thus two generic names are used by Danilewsky on page 762 for 
what he designates “le meme parasite.” 

The table of designations given on page 780 is subject to various 
interpretations. Under the most favorable interpretation Danilewsky 
recognizes one species, Cytozoon malariae with 2 varieties or sub- 
species, hominis and avium, and attempts to harmonize early names 
with his nomenclature. Even this interpretation, however, does not 
leave the reader clear as to the author’s intention; possibly he con- 


sidered earlier names as inappropriate and substituted for them the- 


generic name, Cytamaeba; then, considering this latter inappropriate, 
he appears to have substituted for it Haemocytosporon which he con- 
tracted to Cytosporon. 

During the past thirty years the Secretary has repeatedly endeavored 
to interpret the nomenclature of Danilewsky’s Contribution, but 
is unable to reach a conclusion which he considers in harmony with the 
rules of any code of nomenclature in effect at present or at date of 
publication of said Contribution or prior thereto. In conference with 
other zoologists, the Secretary has learned that they also find the same 
difficulty in interpreting said Contribution. 

The Secretary invites the attention of the Commission to the fact 
that there is an enormous accumulative economic loss in science result- 


*On ne doit voir dans ce nom provisoire (abrégé de Haemocytosporon) 
aucune allusion a une parenté de ce microbe avec les champignons, les monades 
ou les mycétozoaires. Sa classification zoologique sera discutée plus loin. 


= 


NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 I 


tn 


ing from the designations used by some authors, even in papers which 
represent not only interesting but valuable contributions to our knowl- 
edge of biology, physiology, anatomy, etc.; later their colleagues 
endeavor to show the utmost consideration and broadest possible in- 
terpretation of the rules in order to bring as many of these papers as 
possible into harmony with the rules. The Secretary is persuaded 
that as an economic measure in the interest of the advancement of 
science the time is opportune to judge the nomenclatorial status of 
many of these nomenclatorial confusions from a practical point of 
view and to relieve systematists from the expensive burden of time 
necessary in order to interpret or save the nomenclature used by 
authors who either innocently or purposely do not present their 
technical names in a reasonably interpretable method—whatever may 
be the value of their contributions from a standpoint of biology, ana- 
tomy, physiology, pathology, etc. 

On the principle that it is encumbent upon an author who proposes 
new names, to familiarize himself with, and reasonably apply the 
rules of zoological grammar, namely, nomenclature, the Secretary 
recommends that the Commission adopt the following Opinion in 
answer to the question raised by Ernest Hartman: 

The technical Latin designations used by Danilewsky, 1891, Annales 
de l'Institut Pasteur, Vol. 5 (12), pp. 758-782, are not in harmony 
with the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature and are 
therefore not subject to citation under the Law of Priority on basis 
of said publication. 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Jordan 
(D. S.), Jordan (K.), Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, Warren, and 
Stone. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioners. 

Not voting, three (3) Commissioners: Kolbe, Monticelli, and 
Stejneger. 


16 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL W/3 


OPINION 102 


Proteocephala BLAINVILLE, 1828, vs. Proteocephalus 
WEINLAND, 1858 


SUMMARY.—A generic name (example Proteocephalus, 1858) is not invali- 
dated by the earlier publication of the identical or a similar name of higher 
rank (example Proteocephala, 1828). If Taenia ambigua (tod. of Proteo- 
cephalus, 1858) is congeneric with ocellata (tsd. of /chthyotaenia, 1894), Ichthyo- 
taenia is a subjective synonym of Proteocephalus. 


SATEMENT OF CASE.—Prof. George R. LaRue of the University of 
Michigan has presented the following case for opinion: 


I wish to submit for a ruling the question of the availability of the generic 
name Proteocephalus Weinland, 1858. The facts are substantially these: 

Weinland (1858a, p. 53) proposed the generic name Proteocephalus, desig- 
nating Taenia ambigua Dujardin as type and assigning Taenia filicollis and 
T. dispar to the genus. 

It so happens that Blainville (1828, p. 552) had already used the name 
Proteocephala for a family of Cestodaria with the single genus Caryophyl- 
laeus. The question now arises whether Proteocephalus Weinland, 1858, is 
invalidated by the prior use of Proteocephala Blainville, 1828, as the designa- 
tion of a family. As I see it the question resolves itself into two parts, namely, 
whether two words differing only in termination (“«ws” and “a”) are to be 
considered as homonyms, and whether the use of a name to designate a family 
bars the subsequent use of that name to designate a genus. 

The first question seems to have been answered in the first recommendation 
following Art. 36 of the International Code, see Bulletin No. 24, Hygienic 
Laboratory, Wash., p. 47. 

The second question does not seem to be covered by the Code as published 
in 1905. Art. 34 which governs the rejection of a generic name which has 
previously been used to designate another genus obviously does not apply and 
no recommendation appears to have been made by the Commission to cover 
cases similar to the one in question. 

The argument against the use of the name Proteocephalus Weinland, 1858, 
has been stated by Luehe (1899, Zool. Anz., v. 22: 525-526). Since he has been 
followed in his use of the name /chthyotaenia, by Rudin (1916), Meggitt 
(1914), Wagner (1917), M. Plehn (1924), it has seemed well to quote Luehe’s 
argument: 

“ Railliet (1899, Sur la classification des Téniadés. In: Centrbl. f. Bact. u. 
Paraskde. Bd. 26, p. 33 {) hat inzwischen den Namen Jchthyotaenia Lonnb., 
1894, als synonym eingezogen zu Proteocephalus Weinl., 1858. Dass letzterer 
Name an sich seines grOsseren Alters wegen prioritatsberechtigt ware, ist 
zuzugeben und war auch mir bekannt. Gleichwohl sehe ich keine Veranlassung 
ihn zu Ungunsten des bisher allgemein tiblichen Gattungsnamens /chthyotaenia 
auszugraben. Schon 1828 namlich hat Blainville (Dict. Sci. nat., T. 57, p. 552) 
den Namen Proteocephala gebraucht fiir eine Cestodenfamilie (einzige Gat- 
tung Caryophyllaeus). Wenn nun auch dieser Name, weil den heute geltenden 


NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 17 


Vorschriften fur die Bildung der Familiennamen nicht entsprechend, in Weeg- 
fall kommt, so darf doch meines Erachtens ein homonymer Gattungsname 
nicht anerkannt werden. Dass es sich bei Blainville um einen Familien-, nicht 
um einen Gattungsnamen handelt, kommt hierbei ftir mich um so weniger in 
Betracht, als wir heute allgemein die Familiennamen von den Gattungsnamen 
ableiten. 

“Nicht besser ist es um das Prioritatsrecht von Tetracotylus Montic., 1802, 
bestellt. Dieser Name unterscheidet sich nur durch das Geschlecht von Tetra- 
cotyle Filippi, 1854, mit welchem er im tibrigen vollstandig gleich gebildet ist. 
Ich muss daher beide Namen als homonym ansehen, sonst kOnnte ja beispiels- 
weise auch noch einmal der Name Bothriocephalum (neben Bothriocephalus 
Rud.) gebildet werden. Das in No. 4 der von der Deutsch. Zoolog. Gesellsch. 
bearbeiteten Nomenclaturregeln angeftihrte Beispiel “ Picus und Pica” kann 
gegen diese meine Anschauung nicht geltend gemacht werden, da dies beides 
altlateinische Worte sind, welche schon von den R6mern in der ihnen auch heute 
noch von uns beigelegten verschiedenen Bedeutung gebraucht wurden und 
welche daher mit einem anderen Massstabe gemessen werden mussen als neue 
Wortbildungen. 

“Ich gebe zu, dass es sich hier um strittige Fragen handelt. Stiles ist, wie 
er mir brieflich mitgetheilt hat, hinsichtlich beider Puncte anderer Ansicht 
wie ich. So lange indessen diese Fragen noch nicht in einer allgemein giltigen 
und auch mich bindenden Weise entschieden sind (wozu diese Zeilen vielleicht 
die Anregung geben), beanspruche ich fur mich das Recht, den bisher allge- 
mein iblichen Gattungsnamen /chthyotaenia auch fernerhin zu gebrauchen. 
Als typische Art dieser Gattung sehe ich /chthyotaenia ocellata (Rud.) Lo6nn- 
berg an, da dies nicht nur die Art ist, welche Lonnberg (Centrbl. f. Bact. u. 
Paraskde., Bd. 15, 1804, p. 803) an erster Stelle nennt (/. flicollis [Rud.] 
Lonnbg. ist synonym zu /. ocellata |Rud.] Lonnberg), sondern auch diejenige 
von den von Lonnberg aufgefuhrten Arten, welche am besten bekannt ist... . . 

“Tech bin gern bereit zuzugeben, dass dereinst vielleicht auch die Ichthyotaenien 
wieder eine Auftheilung erfahren mtissen, aber vorlaufig ist unsere Kenntnis 
der uberwiegenden Mehrzahl der hierher gehorigen Arten noch viel zu gering, 
um eine solche Auftheilung zuzulassen. Am allerwenigsten wurde dieselbe 
gerechtfertigt sein, wenn wirklich der Name Protcocephalus Weinl. zur Aner- 
kennung gelangen sollte und damit eine Species inquirenda (Taenia ambigua 
Duj.). Typus der Gattung wtirde. Wenn tbrigens Weinland in dieselbe Gat- 
tung auch die Taenia dispar Gze. einreiht, so ist dies zweifellos unberechtigt.” 

Concerning Tetracotylus Monticelli, 18911, I have pointed out (LaRue, 1914) 
that T. coryphicephalus, the type of this genus, is not congeneric with Proteo- 
cephalus filicollis, P. percae, and other species of Proteocephalus. Hence I can 
not agree that Tetracotylus is a synonym of Proteocephalus and Ichthyotaenia, 

As for Taenia ambigua, which Lthe considered to be a species inquirenda, 
I have pointed out that it is a synonym of Taenia filicollis Rud., (LaRue, 
1914, 38-48). I am unable to accept Lihe’s statement that /chthyotaema fili- 
collis is a synonym of J. ocellata. The arguments for my view are too long to 
state here. They are given in full in my monograph (LaRue, 1914, 38-48, and 
93-108). 

The fact that Weinland included Taenia dispar in his genus Proteocephalus 
is not a serious matter. 


18 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOR 73 


Discussion.—Professor [LaRue’s premises raise two distinct 
points. The first of formal nomenclature, the second a question of 
nomenclature dependent to some extent upon subjective conceptions 
of synonymy. 

Proteocephalus Weinl., 1858a, 53, tod. Taenia ambigua versus the 
dead family name Proteocephala Blainville, 1828a, v. 57, 552.—Art. 
34 of the International Code is unambiguous. It reads as follows: 
‘A generic name is to be rejected as a homonym when it has previ- 
ously been used for some other genus of animals. Example: Trichina 
Owen, 1835, nematode, is rejected as homonym of Trichina Meigen, 
1830, insect.” 

There is nothing in Art. 34 which provides that a generic name 
becomes a homonym if the identical name has previously been used 
for a systematic unit of some other rank (for instance, species, family, 
order, etc.). On the contrary Art. 33 definitely states that: “A 
name is not to be rejected because of tautonymy, that is, because the 
specific or the specific and subspecific names are identical with the 
generic name. Examples: Trutta trutta, Apus apus apus.” 

The fact that Proteocephala is a dead family name because it is not 
formed in accordance with Art. 4 (ending idae) has no bearing upon 
the present case, which opens up the very broad question whether 
generic names are to be invalidated as homonyms because of the prior 
publication of an identical name for a supergeneric group. If this 
kind of homonymy were to be admitted, numerous cases would arise 
for adjudication. The history of nomenclature clearly shows that the 
rule of homonyms is applicable only as applied to systematic units 
of identical rank except in so far as the contrary might be implied 
from the custom of some authors to consider tautonyms as homonyms. 
As pointed out above, however, Art. 33 distinctly provides that tau- 
tonyms are not homonyms. 

The answer to Professor LaRue’s first question is, therefore, that 
Proteocephala, 1828, has no nomenclatorial bearing on Proteocephalus, 
1858. 

Proteocephalus, 1858, tod. ambigua versus Ichthyotaenia, 1894, tsd. 
ocellata.—It is to be noticed that Taenia ambigua is a species inquir- 
enda fide Lithe, 1899k, but that it is a synonym of filicollis fide LaRue, 
1914; also that filicollis is a synonym of ocellata fide Ltthe, 1899k, 
but that it is distinct from ocellata fide LaRue, 1911. Thus there is a 
difference of opinion between Ltihe and LaRue in regard to the sub- 
jective synonymy in case of the names ambigua, filicollis, and ocellata. 
This difference of opinion belongs in the field of systematic zoology, 
not in the field of nomenclature. 


Rite 


NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 19 


If ambigua and ocellata (the type species of Proteocephalus and 
Ichthyotaenia) are congeneric, Proteocephalus, 1858, has clear pri- 
ority over Ichthyotaenta, 1894, and Ichthyotaenia is a subjective 
synonym of Proteocephalus regardless of the subjective synonymic 
status of ambigua, filicollis, and ocellata. 

On basis of the foregoing premises and argument the Secretary 
recommends that the Commission adopt the following opinion: 

A generic name (example, Proteocephalus, 1858) is not invalidated 
by the earlier publication of the identical or a similar name of different 
[higher] rank (example, Proteocephala, 1828). If Taenia ambiqua 
(tod. of Proteocephalus, 1858) is congeneric with ocellata (tsd. of 
Ichthyotaenia, 1894), Ichthyotaenia is a subjective synonym of Pro- 
teocephalus. 

The foregoing Opinion was submitted at the Budapest (1927) 
Meeting to Lord Rothschild as special subcommittee of one for con- 
sideration and report. He reported as follows: 

I desire to report on Circular Letter No. 124 that I find that Proteocephalius 
as a generic name can and must stand beside Proteocephala, as Family names 
and names of higher groups have no connection with generic designations. 

Opinion written by the Secretary. 

Opinion concurred in— 

(a), regarding Proteocephalus, by thirteen (13) Commissioners : 
Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Handlirsch, Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), 
Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone, and 
Warren. 

Commissioner Stone states: ‘* With the understanding that generic 


and subgeneric names are treated exactly alike nomenclatorially, 7. ¢., 


an earlier subgeneric name of identical form, renders invalid a sub- 
sequent generic name. So with species and subspecies.” 

Commissioner Stejneger appended a footnote, as follows: “ I sug- 
gest, however, that the summary is not quite clear. The subgenus has 
not the same ‘rank’ as the genus, hence someone might argue that 
‘a generic name is not invalidated by the earlier publication of the 
identical or similar subgeneric name.’ Would not ‘higher’ for ‘ dif- 
ferent’ remedy that?” [Change adopted as an editorial correction. 
—C. W. S.] 

(b), regarding synonymy, by eleven (11) Commissioners: Bather, 
Chapman, Handlirsch, Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, 
Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger, Stiles, and Warren. 

Opinion dissented from— . 

(a), regarding Proteocephalus, by no Commissioner. 

(b), regarding synonymy, by no Commissioner. 


20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Not voting— 

(a), regarding Proteocephalus, four (4) Commissioners: Dabbene, 
Hartert, Ishikawa, and Loennberg. 

(b), regarding synonymy, six (6) Commissioners: Apstein, Dab- 
bene, Hartert, Ishikawa, Loennberg, and Stone. 

Votes not clear on either (a) or (b) cast by Commissioner Monti- 
celli. 





NO. OPINIONS 98 TO 104 21 


tn 


OPINION 103 
THE GENERIC NAME Grus, TYPE Ardea grus 


SUMMARY.—The type of Grus Pallas, 1767, is Ardea grus Linn., 1758, by 
absolute tautonymy. Grus is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic 
Names. 


PRESENTATION OF CASE.—Dr. Witmer Stone of the Academy of 
Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, requests an opinion on the type of 
Grus. His presentation of case is as follows: 


Application of Generic Name Grus. 

In his Systema Natura, 1758, Linnaeus divides the genus Ardea into four sec- 
tions, Cristatae, Grues, Ciconiae, and Ardeae. 

(1) Are any of these citable as genera? The last three seem to be exactly 
parallel to the divisions of Simia regarded as subgenera by Stiles and Orleman 
(Jour. of Mam. Feb. 1026). 

(2) If not citable from here, are not Grus and Ciconia citable from Pallas 
(Spicilegia Zool. IV, p. 1, 1767) as covering the species included in Linnaeus’ 
groups? 

Pallas in his work discusses and describes a new species Grus psophia and 
the genus Grus has recently been quoted from here as applying solely to this 
species (the only one mentioned) thus becoming a synonym of Psophia. 

Previously it was regarded as applying to all the species of Linnaeus’ section 
Grues, and Ardea grus was by tautonymy the type. This I think is the correct 
view. Pallas states that the birds included in 4rdca by Linnaeus are divisible 
into three genera and then cites 4rdeac, Ciconiae and Grues—the three Lin- 
naean- groups and refers to “Gruibus reliquis” in describing and comparing 
his new and evidently aberrant species. 


DiscussION OF CASE.—by Commissioner Stejneger. 

THE TYPE OF Grus PALLAS, 1767, 1s Ardea grus LINNAEUS, 1758. 

The question of the recognition of the quasigeneric names which 
Linnaeus and subsequent authors of the eighteenth century applied to 
sectional divisions of genera without apparent intention to use them 
nomenclatorially is so complicated and requires such extensive re- 
search, not only as to the manner of their application by these authors 
themselves, but particularly as to the effect their legitimation at this 
late date would have upon already otherwise stabilized and current 
nomenclature, that it is thought unwise to raise it with regard to a 
case which is susceptible of definite and identical settlement by other 
means. 

The question laid before the Commission by Dr. Stone is essentially 
this : 


22 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


What species is the type of the genus Grus instituted by Pallas in 
1767? 

The main object of Pallas’ paper entitled “ Grus psophia” (in 
Spicilegia Zoologica, fasc. 4, 1767, pp. 3-9, pl. 1) was to give a des- 
cription of the bird hitherto known as Psophia crepitans based on 
autopsy of a fresh specimen of this then rare South American bird 
and to show that it does not constitute a separate genus, as postulated 
by Linné, but that it must be attached to one of the sections of the 
Linnaean genus Ardea, which Pallas, however, regards and names as 
a distinct genus Grus. 

It therefore becomes necessary to review briefly the treatment ac- 
corded the two genera by Linne. 

In 1758 (10 ed. Syst. Nat., vol. 1, p. 154) Linnaeus has the genus 
Psophia (with one species: crepitans). The genus Ardea, with 19 
species, is found on page 141. The latter Linné enumerated under 
four section headings as follows: 

x Cristatae: rostro vix capite longiore (species 1-2) 
xx Grues: capite calvo (species 3-6) 

xxx Ciconiae (species 7-8) 

xxxx Ardeae (species 9-19) 

In the 12th Edition (pp. 263 and 233 respectively) the treatment 
is exactly the same, except that the section of Ardeae there includes 
eight more species (species 9-26) and that one species, Ardea ibis, has 
been transferred to the genus Tantalus. 

Pallas begins his article as follows: 


Aves ab /ll. LINNAEO sub Ardearum nomine recensitae constantivus et 
evidentissimis characteribus in tria genera, ab antiquioribus jam olim Orni- 
thologis agnita et judiciole adoptata, distingui possunt: Ardearum nempe 
Ciconiarum atque Gruum. (The birds enumerated by Linné under the name 
Ardea can be distinguished by constant and most obvious characters in three 
genera which were already recognized and judiciously adopted by the older 
ornithologists, viz.: Ardea, Ciconia and Grus.) 


He then proceeds to enumerate the characters of these genera, 1n- 
cluding in Ciconia Linne’s genus Mycteria, and in Grus the Linnaean 
genus Psophia, at the same time referring Linné’s Tantalus, together 
with his Ardea ibis and Ardea aequinoctialis, to Numenius. The sen- 
tence in which Pallas relegates the generic term Psophia to the 
synonymy of Grus (p. 4) reads as follows: 

Ex autopsia quoque dedici, avem Americanam, quam PSOPHIAE nomine 
indigitarunt BARRERIUS et post eum Linnaeus, non pro peculiaris generis 
ave habendum, sed Gruibus esse accessendam, quibus characteres, habitu, mori- 


busque convenit. (From autopsy I have also learned that the American bird 
which Barrére, and after him Linné, have published under the name Psophia, 


NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 23 


is not to be regarded as a separate genus but must be added to the Grues, with 
which it agrees in characters, habitus, and habits.) 

All this by way of introduction to a minute description of the exter- 
nal characters and internal anatomy of a fresh specimen of a Psophia 
from the vivarium of the Prince of Orange, which forms the real 
object of the memoir, since no specimen had come under the eyes of 
any other zoologist since the time of Marcgrave and Barreére. 

It is quite obvious that Pallas did not make Grus a monotypic genus 
with psophia as type. The argument that he mentions no other specific 
term in conjunction with the generic name cannot prevail against the 
fact that Pallas repeatedly refers to the existence of other Grucs, 
and to the species enumerated by Linné in particular. 

In addition to the previous quotations it is only necessary to cite the 
first paragraph of his “ Descriptio Gruis Psophiae”’ (p. 7) which 
reads as follows: 

Magnitudo circiter Numenit Arquatae; sed corpus paulo crassius atque bre- 
vius. Proportiones membrorum omnes longe breviores etiam sunt, quam in 
Gruibus reliquis; ceteroquin habitus consimilis. (Size about that of Numenius 
arquata; but the body a little heavier and shorter. All the proportions of the 
limbs are also much shorter than in the other Grues; habitus otherwise entirely 
similar. ) 

“The other Grues” refers plainly to the species enumerated by Linné in the 
tenth edition,’ viz.: Ardea canadensis, A. grus, A. americana, and A. anligone. 

The type of the genus Grus Pallas must therefore be looked for 
among one of these species (including of course Grus psophia Pallas ) 
in which case Ardea grus Linné becomes the type by tautonymy. 

REMARKS BY THE SECRETARY.—Commissioner Apstein (1915a, 
195) agrees with Commissioner Stejneger that grus Linn., 1758, is a 
type of Grus Pallas, but both he and Sherborn date the latter as 
1766, instead of 1767. 

The Secretary views Grus as dating from Linn., 1758a, tat. Ardea 
grus. 

As the argument by Stejneger and the data by Apstein give the 
same general results as the argument by the Secretary, and as the 
question of date appears to be non-essential in disposing of the case, 
the Secretary supports the conclusions by Stejneger and Apstein and 
does not emphasize his own view as to date. 

The Secretary moves that : 

If Commissioner Stejneger’s Opinion on Grus is adopted by the Commission, 
the generic name Grus Pallas, 1766 or 1767, tat. Ardea grus, is hereby placed 
in the Official List of Generic Names. 


* By referring specifically to Ardea ibis, see above, Pallas shows that he is 
dealing with the roth edition though it makes no difference inasmuch as the 
12th edition is identical in the treatment of the Grues. 





24. SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOU 6 


The foregoing Opinion was submitted to the Commission in Cir- 
cular Letter No. 112. 

Opinion prepared by Commissioner Stejneger. 

Opinion concurred in by sixteen (16) Commissioners, namely: 
Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, 
Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, 
Stejneger, Stiles, Stone, and Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioners. 

Not voting, two (2) Commissioners: Ishikawa, and Monticelli. 

Secretary’s motion concurred in by fifteen (15) Commissioners, 
namely: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Hartert, 
Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Loennberg, Monticelli, 
Neveu-Lemaire, Stiles, Stone, and Warren. 

Secretary's motion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, three (3) Commissioners: Kolbe, Stejneger, and Ishi- 
kawa. 


NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 


bo 
on 


OPINION 104 
57 GENERIC NAMES PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL LIST 


SUMMARY .—The following 57 generic names, with type species cited. 
are hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names: 

Protozoa: Bursaria, Eimeria, Laverania, Plasmodium, Sarcocys- 
is. 

Crestopa: Ligula. 

Nematopa: [ilaria, Heterodera, Rhabditis, Strongylus, Syngamuts. 

OLIGOCHAETA: Enchytraeus. 

HiruDINEA: Haemadipsa, Limnatis. 

CRUSTACEA: Armadillidium, Astacus, Cancer, Diaptomus, Gamina- 
rus, Homarus, Nephrops, Oniscus, Pandalus, Penaeus, Porcellio, 

XipHosuraA: Limulus. 

SCORPIONIDEA : Scorpio. 

ARANEAE seu ARANEIDA: Avicularia, Dendryphantes, Dysdera, 
Latrodectus, Segestria. 

AcaRINA: Cheyletus, Chorioptes, Demodex, Dermanyssus, Glyci- 
phagus, Polydesmus, Psoroptes, Rhizoglyphus, Trombidium. 

THYSANURA: Lepisma. 

COLLEMBOLA: Podura. 

OrtHopterA: Blatta, Ectobius, Gryllus, Periplaneta. 

AnopLura: Pediculus, Phthirus. 

Hemiptera: Anthocoris, Nabis, Notonecta, Reduvius, Triatoma. 

DERMAPTERA: Forficula. 

SUCTORIA S. SIPHONAPTERA S. APHANIPTERA: Pulex. 

MamMaLtla: Cercopithecus. 

PRESENTATION OF CASE.—The Secretary’s Circular Letter No. 122 
contained a list of 61 names suggested for inclusion in the Official 
List of Generic Names. Practically all of these are in Commissioner 
Apstein’s (1915) list of Nomina Conservanda. The addition of 
Laverania is made in order to meet a difference of opinion among 
specialists as to classification. 

The Secretary has personally checked these names and believes that 
they are all nomenclatorially available and valid, and that, therefore, 
they can be adopted in harmony with the Rules instead of as Nomina 
Conservanda. He has changed the dates given by Commissioner 
Apstein in several instances to agree with the dates found in Wash- 
ington, 


20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


The Secretary has altered several genotypes given by Commissioner 
Apstein as the genera were published as monotypic. These alter- 
ations do not however influence the position of the genera. 

The Notice that the 61 names in question were under consideration 
was published in Science, May 13, 1927, v. 65 (1689), pp. 471- 
472, and Zoologischer Anzeiger, v. 71 (1/2), p. 64. 

Objection or question of one sort or another has been raised to five 
of the 61 names (Atropos, Daphne, Termes, Nepa and Corixa), and 
these have, therefore, been tabled, temporarily and without prejudice. 

In addition to the 56 names in the Secretary’s Circular Letter No. 
122, one name (Cercopithecus from Circular Letter No. 102) is added 
to the list. This name had been tabled temporarily pending a confer- 
ence between Commissioner Apstein and the Secretary. This con- 
ference has been held and the slight differences of Opinion on the 
case have been harmonized, thus making the vote unanimous. Com- 
missioner Apstein was appointed a special committee of one for 
special study of this case. 

The list of 57 names follows (for complete bibliographic references 
see standard nomenclators and bibliographies; the letters, as 1758a, 
are taken from Stiles and Hassall, Index Catalogue) : 


PROTOZOA : 

Bursaria Mueller, 1773a, 62, tsd. truncatella. 

Eimeria Schneider, 1875d, .xli, mt. falciformis (erroneously quoted as 
simplex in Zool. Record, v. 12, Prot., 579), type host Mus musculus. 

Laverania Grassi & Feletti, 1890a, 60, mt. malariae (homonym) so. falci- 
para Welch, 1897, 36, 47, type host Homo. [For authors who consider 
the parasite of aestivo-autumnal malaria generically distinct from that 
of quartan malaria.] Not Laverania Labbé, 1809a, 82, type ranaruim, 
type host Rana esculenta. 

Plasmodium Marchiafava & Celli, 1885d, 791, mt. tsd. malariae (as re- 
stricted to quartan fever), type host Homo. 

Sarcocystis Lankester, 1882, QJMS, 54, mt. miescheri syn. miescheriana. 

CESTODA :! 
Ligula Bloch, 1782a, 1, pl. 1, figs. 1-2, tsd. avium. 
NEMATODA : 

Filaria Mueller, 1787a, 64-67, tsd. martis. 

Heterodera Schmidt, 1871a, 1, mt. schachtii. 

Rhabditis Dujardin, 1845a, 230, 239-243, tsd. (1865) terricola. 

Strongylus Mueller, 1780, pl. 42, figs. 1-12; or Goeze, 1782a, 41, 137; mt. 
equi = tsd. equinus. Absolute synonym Sclerostoma Rud., 1809a, 35, 
type equinum., 

Syngamus Siebold, 1836a, 105-116, mt. trachealis Sieb., syn. of trachea. 

OLIGOCHAETA : 
Enchytraeus Henle, 1837, Arch. Anat. Phys. Med., 74, mt. albidus. 


NO. 5 OPINIONS 98 TO 104 a7 


HiIrRuDINEA : 
Haemadipsa Tennent, 1859, Ceylon, v. 1, 302, mt. zeylanica Mogq.-Tand., 
1827a, 120: or 71826. 
Limnatis Mogq.-Tand., ?1826; or 1827a, 122, mt. nilotica Sav., 1820, 113. 
CRUSTACEA: 
Armadillidium Brandt, 1831, Thiere in der Artzneimittel, v. 2, 81; or 1833, 
Bull. Soc. imp. nat. Moscow, 184, tsd. (1915) wulgare Latr., 1804¢, 
47, so. armadillo Linn., 1758a, 637. 
Astacus Pall., 1772, 81; and Fabr., 1775a, 413, tat. Cancer astacus Linn., 
1758a, 631, syn. fluviatilis Fabr., 1775a, 413. 
Cancer Linn., 1758a, 625, tsd. (1810) pagurus. 
Diaptomus Westwood, 1836, Brit. Encyclop., v. 2, 228, type Cyclops castor. 
Gammarus Fabr., 1775, 418, tsd. (1810) pulex Linn., 1758a, 633. 
Homarus Fabr., in Weber, 1795a, 94, tsd. gammarus = marinus. s. vul- 
garis. Same as Milne-Edw., 1837, HnC, 320, 333. 
Nephrops Leach, 1815, Edinb. Encycl., v. 7, 398; 1815, TLSL, 344; mt. 
norvegicus. 
Oniscus Linn., 1758a, 636, tsd. (1804) asellus Linn., 1758a, 637, (1810) 
murarius 1792 so. asellus. 
Pandalus Leach, 1815, TLSL, 376, mt. annulicornis. 
Penacus Fabr., in Weber, 1795a, 94 (1798 emendation of 1795 misprint) 
tsd. (1810) monodon. 
Porcellio Latr., 1804c, 39, 49, tod. Oniscus scaber Latr., 1804. 
XIPHOSURA: . 
Limulus Mueller, 1785, 124, tsd. (1810) polephemus Linn., 1758a. 
SCORPIONIDEA : 
Scorpio Linn., 1758a, 624, tsd. (1810) europaeus Linn., 1758a. 
ARANEAE Seu ARANEIDA:! 
Avicularia Lam., 1818a, 107, tat. avicularia Linn., 1758a. 
Dendryphantes Koch, 1837a, 31, tsd. (1869) hastatus. 
Dysdera Latr., 1804, Nouv. Dic. Hist. nat., 34, mt. punctoria Latr., 1804 
syn. erythrina. 
Latrodectus Walck., 1805, 81, tsd. (1810) 13-guttatus. 
Segestria Walck., 1805, 48, tsd. (1810) florentina. 
ACARINA: 
Cheyletus Latr., 1796a, 179, mt. eruditus. 
Chorioptes Gerv., in Gerv. & Ben., 1859a, 463, tod. caprae. 
Demodex Owen, 1843, 252, mt. folliculorum Simon, 1842, 218-237, pl. 11. 
Dermanyssus Dugés, 1834, Ann. Sci. nat., 18, tsd. gallinae deGeer, 1778a, 
111, pl. 6, fig. 8, syn. avium. 
Glyciphagus Hering, 1838, 610, type domesticus. 
Polydesmus Latr., 1802b, 44, mt. complanatus. 
Psoroptes Gerv., 1841a, 9, mt. equi Gery., 1841a, 9. 
Rhizoglyphus Clap., t869a, 506, tod. robini Clap., 1860. 
Trombidium Fabr., 1775a, 430, tsd. (1810) holosericeum Lainn., 1758a, 617. 
THYSANURA: 
Lepisma Linn., 1758a, 344, 608, tsd. (1810; 1915) saccharina Linn., 1758a, 
608. 
COLLEMBOLA : 
Podura Linn., 1758a, 344, 608, tsd. (1810) plumbea [; tsd. antedated (1915) 
aquatica]. 


28 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 





ORTHOPTERA : 
Blatta Linn., 1758a, 342, 424, tsd. (1810; 1915) orientalis Linn., 1758a, 424. 
Ectobius Stephens, 1835, Ill. Brit. Ent. Mandib., v. 6, 45, tsd. (1840) Blaita 
lapponica Linn., 1758a, 425. 


Gryllus Linn., 1758a, 342, 425, tsd. (1810; 1915) campestris Linn., 1758a, 
428. y 
Periplaneta Burm., 1838, Handb. Ent., v. 2, 502, tsd. (1903) Blatta ameri- 
cana Linn., 1758a, 424. ‘ 
ANOPLURA: 
Pediculus Linn., 1758a, 610, tsd. (1810) humanus, restricted later to syn. of ; 


tsd. (1915; 1916) capitis. 
Phthirus Leach, 1815, Edinb. Encycl., v. 9 (1), 77, mt. ingwinalis so. Pedicu- 
lus pubis Linn., 1758a, 611. Same as Phthirius, emendation. 
HEMIPTERA : 
Anthocoris Rodhe in Fallen, 1814, 9, tsd. (1840; 1910; 1915; 1917) Cimex 
nemorum Linn., 1761, 254, so. sylvestris Linn., 1758a, 440. 
Nabis Latr., 1802b, 248, tsd. (1840; 1917) vagans Fabr., so. (tsd. 1915) 
Cimex ferus Linn., 1758a, 440. 
Notonecta Linn., 1758a, 343, 439, tsd. (1810; 1915) glauca Linn., 1758a, 
439. Europe. 
Reduvius Fabr., 1775a, 729, tsd. (1810; 1840; I915; 1917) Cimex per- 
sonatus Linn., 1758a, 446 [; tsd. by error (1803) fuscipes]. 
Triatoma Laporte, 1832, Mag. de Zool., v. 2, 11, mt. gigas Fabr. = rubro- 
fasciatus deGeer; tsd. (by error, 1915) infestans. 
DERMAPTERA : 
Forficula Linn., 1758a, 342, 423, tat. (1758) and tsd. (1810; 1915) auricu- 
laria s. (1758) forficula s. vulgaris. 
Sucrorta s. SIPHONAPTERA s. APHANIPTERA: 
Pulex Linn., 1758a, 614, tsd. (1810; 1915) irritans Linn., 1758a, 614. 
Europe. 
MAMMALIA: 
Cercopithecus Linn., 1758a, 26, tsd. (1926) Simia diana Linn., 1758a, 26. 


Opinion concurred in by eleven (11) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Chapman, Dabbene, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (D. S.), Monticelli, 
Neveu-Lemaire, Stiles, Stone, Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, seven (7) Commissioners: Bather, Handlirsch, Hartert, 
Jordan (Kk.), Kolbe, Loennberg, Stejneger. 


ahs 





3 











BS See ee: 3 


a 


een eee eee 
ee RS. P, 
eae = aS 
eS ; —— = 


A 


Ne a. 


a 


Shee Reis ee I a aria Ee ra 
S aN a5. DS ee oe bat aS 
Sana £5 Se eo eS oe ee “ 


2, 
=z, 


= oe z 
PR ete 


\) 
| 


Hy 
ay 






SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 
VOLUME 73, NUMBER 6 


| OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 


COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


OPINIONS 105 TO 114 





OFFICE LIBRARY — 


CITY OF WASHINGTON 
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 
JUNE 8, 1929 





SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 
VOLUME 73, NUMBER 6 





OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


OPINIONS 105 TO 114 





(PUBLICATION 3016) 


CITY OF WASHINGTON 
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 
JUNE 8, 1929 





The Lord Baltimore Press 


BALTIMORE, MD., U. 8. A. 





OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


OPINIONS 105 TO 114 


OPINION 105 
Dysowski’s (1926) NAMES OF CRUSTACEA SUPPRESSED 


SUMMARY.—Resolved: That all of the new names published in Dybowski’s 
paper, “ Synoptisches Verzeichnis mit kurzer Besprechung der Gattungen und 
Arten dieser Abteilung der Baikalflohkrebse” (Bul. internat. Acad. polonaise 
d. Sci. et d. Lettres, 1926, No. 1-2b, Jan.-Feb., pp. 1-77), are hereby sup- 
pressed, under Suspension of the Rules, on the ground that the application of 
the Rules in accepting them “ will clearly result in greater confusion than 
uniformity.” 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Miss Mary J. Rathbun, U. S. National 
Museum, has raised the question whether the new designations of 
genera and species published by Dybowski in ‘‘ Synoptisches Verzeich- 
nis mit kurzer Besprechung der Gattungen und Arten dieser Abteil- 
ung der Baikalflohkrebse”” (Bul. internat. Acad. polonaise d. Sci. 
et d. Lettres, 1926, No. 1-2b, Jan.-Feb., pp. 1-77) are available 
under the International Rules, and, if so, whether it is not wise to 
suppress the names under Suspension of the Rules on the ground 
that the acceptance of the names under the Rules will produce greater 
confusion than uniformity. As examples of the designations in ques- 
tion she cites the following: 

Siemienkiewicziechinogammarus siemienkiewitschi, 

Cancelloidokytodermoganunarus (Loveninuskytodermogammarus) lovent, 

Axelboeckiakytodermogammarus carpenteri, 

Garjajewiakytodermoganumarus dershawini, 

Parapallaseakytodermogammarus borowskii var. dichrous. 

Discussion.—Notice to the zoological profession that this paper 
was under consideration for suppression by Suspension of the Rules 
has been published as follows: 

Monitore Zoologico Italiano, Anno 38, 1927, no. 9. 

Nature, vol. 119, June 4, 10927. 

Zoologischer Anzeiger, Band 71 (11-12), 28 Mai, 1927. 

The question was laid before the Commission in the Secretary’s 
Circular Letter No. 120, dated March, 1927, with request for sugges- 


SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS, VOL. 73, No. 6 


2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


tions from the Commissioners as to the best procedure. In reply to 
this Circular Letter the following suggestions reached the Secretary: 


A.—The following thirteen Commissioners suggested that the names should 
be suppressed: Apstein, Bather, Chapman, Handlirsch, Horvath, D. S. Jordan, 
Kk. Jordan, Kolbe, Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, Stiles, Stone, and Warren; 

B.—The following four Commissioners suggested that the names should be 
suppressed under Suspension of the Rules: Horvath, D. S. Jordan, Stiles, and 
Warren; 

C.—The following two Commissioners suggested that the names are not 
available under the Rules: Kolbe and Loennberg ; 

D.—The following two Commissioners suggested that the question be further 
discussed in the August 1927 (Budapest) meeting of the Commission: Bather 
and Monticelli; 

E.—The following four Commissioners suggested that the author be re- 
quested to introduce for the designations in question names more in harmony 
with the International Rules: Chapman, D. S. Jordan, Stiles, and Stone; 

F—Not voting, four Commissioners: Dabbene, Hartert, Ishikawa, and 
Stejneger. 


The Secretary has communicated with Professor Dybowski who 
has replied that he intended the designations in question only as pro- 
visional names and that the time is not ripe for the definite naming 
of these animals. 

In Circular Letter No. 138 the attention of the Commission was 
invited to the fact that 13 of the 14 Commissioners who replied to 
Circular Letter No. 120 agree that the designations in question 
should be suppressed and that the only difference of opinion which 
had arisen involved the question whether they should be suppressed 
under Suspension of the Rules or whether they should be declared not 
available under the Rules. No Commissioner voted for the retention 
of the names. 

Professor Dybowski’s statement that the names were only pro- 
visional implies that an author may suggest a provisional name and 
afterwards change it. This suggestion, however, is not in harmony 
with Article 32. 

The names are available under Article 8) & k, and the question 
that they have not been published has not been raised by any person. 
On the contrary, they have distinctly been published under Article 
25 of the International Rules. 

It appears to the Secretary that of the two methods suggested 
(namely, suspension or unavailability) the suppression of the names 
under Suspension of the Rules is the more practical, although either 
method would bring about the same ultimate result, and that by sup- 
pressing the names under Suspension of the Rules, this result will 





NO. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO II4 3 


be obtained without the necessity for discussion of the question of 
availability, upon which there would appear to be a possible dif- 
ference of opinion. Accordingly, the Secretary recommends that the 
Commission adopt the following resolution : 

Resolved: That all of the new names published in Dybowski’s 
paper, “ Synoptisches Verzeichnis mit kurzer Besprechung der Gat- 
tungen und Arten dieser Abteilung der Baikalflohkrebse”’ (Bul. 
internat. Acad. polonaise d. Sci. et d. Lettres, 1926, No. 1-2b, Jan.- 
Feb., pp. 1-77), are hereby suppressed under Suspension of the Rules 
on the ground that the application of the Rules in accepting them 
“will clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.” 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Chapman, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), 
Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Stone, Stiles, Ishikawa, Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, four (4), Commissioners: Dabbene, Loennberg, 
Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger. 


4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


OPINION 106 
THE Type oF Oestrus LINN., 1758, Is O. ovts. 


SUMMARY.—The type of Oestrus Linn., 1758, is O. ovis (Art. 30g). 
Latreille’s designation of Oestrus equi Fabr. as type of Oestrus is not valid 
(Art. 30g). The following five names of dipterous genera are hereby placed in 
the Official List of Generic Names: Cephenemyia (type trompe), Gasterophilus 
(type equi of Clark, synonym of intestinalis de Geer), Hypoderma (type 
bovis), Oedemagena (type tarandi), and Oestrus (type ovis). 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Professor W. S. Patton, Liverpool School 
of Tropical Medicine, has submitted the following case: 


I am writing to request you to place before the Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature data on which an application is based for Suspension of the 
Rules of Priority on the following cases: Oestrus L., 1758 (Gasterophilus 
Leach, 1817, nec Gastrophilus auct.) with Oestrus intestinalis de Geer as type, 
and to place Gasterophilus Leach, 1817, in the Official List of Generic Names 
with G. intestinalis as type; Cephalemyia Latr., 1810, with C. ovis L. as type, 
and to place Oestrus L. in the Official List of Generic Names with O. ovis as 
type. 

The facts connected with the nomenclature of the horse bots and warble flies 
are briefly as follows: In 1758 Linnaeus founded the genus Oestrus including 
in it the following five species, the first being the type of the genus. 


. Oestrus bovis [type host Bos taurus]. 

. Oestrus tarandi [type host Cervus tarandus]. 

. Oestrus nasalis [type host Equus caballus]. 

. Oestrus haemorrhoidalis [type host Equus caballus). 
. Oestrus ovis [type host Ovis aries]. 


mewn 


It is quite clear from the description of Oestrus bovis that Linnaeus meant 
the common horse bot which has for more than a century been known as 
Gasterophilus intestinalis de Geer (equi Clark), and not the equally familiar 
warble fly of cattle, Hypoderma bovis. In 1818 Latreille revised these species 
and erected four genera for the reception of the Linnaean species as follows: 


1. Hypoderma for Oestrus bovis. 

. Cephalemyia for Oestrus ovis. 

3. Oedemagena for Oestrus tarandi. 
4. Cephenemyia for Oestrus nasalis. 


No 


In 1817 Leach erected the genus Gasterophilus (nec Gastrophilus auct.) with 
bovis L. (equi Clark) as type, and included in it haemorrhoidalis L. Clark later 
clearly recognized Linnaeus’s original mistake, and pointed out that many of 
the older authors used the name bovis in this erroneous sense. 

Without going further into this extremely involved question of nomenclature, 
it is clear that if the Law of Priority is to be strictly adhered to, the horse 
bots should be placed in the genus Oestrus and the common species known 
specifically as bovis. The results would then be as follows: 





No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO 114 5 


1. It would be necessary to erect a new genus for the warble flies of cattle 
and goats, flies now placed in the genus Hypoderma. 

2. The horse bots would have to be placed in the genus Oestrus (synonym 
Gasterophilus) with bovis as type. 

3. The ruminant nasal bots would have to be placed in the genus Cephalemyia 
with ovis as type. 

These changes have already been partially adopted in the “ Review of Ap- 
plied Entomology,” Series B, Medical and Veterinary, and if you will refer 
to recent summaries of papers of these flies in this Review, you will see that 
the horse bots are placed in the genus Oestrus and the nasal bots in the genus 
Cephalemyia. This change has already been accepted as authoritative by some 
writers. 

The strict application of the Rule of Priority causing such a transfer will 
result in the utmost confusion involving generic, subfamily, and family names 
and designation in both veterinary and human medicine. As a teacher of medical 
and veterinary entomology I am strongly of the opinion that Suspension of 
the Rules, thereby validating accepted nomenclature, which has been in con- 
sistent use for more than a century in veterinary medicine, is highly desirable. 

I am aware that Oestrus L., 1758, type ovis was suggested for adoption in the 
Official List by the Commission in 1913, but I am not aware as to whether it has 
been formally adopted. 


The documents were submitted by the Secretary to the Committee 
on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington for 
special study and this Committee has presented two reports (April 
II, 1927, and May 12, 1928), summarized as follows: 


The genus Oestrus was described by Linnaeus in 1758 (Syst. Nat., roth ed., 
p. 584) and included the following five species: 


. Oestrus bovis. 

. Oestrus tarandi. 

. Oestrus nasalis. 

. Oestrus haemorrhoidalis. 
. Oestrus ovis. 


mBwWN & 


The first species, bovis, was composite, as the original description described 
the adult which is now known as Gasterophilus intestinalis de Geer, while the 
larva and habits were those common to the species now known as Hypoderma 
bovis. None of the species was designated as type by the original describer. 

In 1810 (Consid. Générales, p. 444) Latreille named as type of Oestrus, 
“ Oestrus equi Fabr.,” 1787. 

In 1818 (Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. nat., vol. 23, pp. 271-274) Latreille proposed four 
genera, removing four of the species originally included in the genus Oestrus. 
The first species, bovis, as applied to the larva, was referred to Hypoderma; 
the second species, tarandi, was made the type of Oedemagena; the third species, 
nasalis, was not mentioned by name, but trompe Fabr., which is the same as 
nasalis, was made the type of the genus Cephenemyia; and the fifth species, 
ovis, was made the type of the genus Cephalemyia. In this work Latreille re- 
stricted the genus Oestrus to equi Fabr. and haemorrhoidalis, the fourth species. 


6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Apparently writers have not followed Latreille, and in 1826 Curtis (Brit. 
Ent., vol. 3, p. 106) designated in a very definite manner, by the use of the 
words “type of the genus,” Oestrus ovis as the type of Ocstrus. 

Since 1826 dipterologists have generally followed Curtis’ designation and 
have considered the nasal bots of sheep as belonging to the genus Ocstrus, the 
warble flies of cattle and goats as belonging to the genus Hypoderma, and the 
horse bot flies as belonging to the genus Gasterophilus, a genus proposed by 
Leach in 1817. However, in recent years some workers have considered that 
Latreille’s designation of 1810 made it necessary to use the name Oestrus for 
the horse bots and have resurrected the name Cephalemyia for the nasal bots 
of sheep. 

This committee has examined into the literature and finds that Clark was not 
the first author to propose the name equi. The name equi was first proposed by 
Fabricius in 1787 (Mantissa Insectorum, vol. 2, p. 321) as follows: 


“4. O. alis immaculatis, thorace ferrugineo, abdomine nigro: pilis flauis. 
a. Oestrus nasalis Sp. Ins. 2. 399. 4. 
b. Oestrus haemorrhoidalis Sp. Ins. 2. 399. 5. 
a. et b. merae varietates nullo modo specie sed tantum loco diversae.” 


This same description and understanding of equi was used by Fabricius in 
Entomologia Systematica, vol. 4, 1794, p. 232. 

Clark in 1797 (Trans. Linn. Soc., vol. 3, pp. 289-328) considers Oestrus equi 
Fabr. of the Syst. Ent. to be the same as Oesirus veterinus, and Oestrus equi 
var. b. as a synonym of Oestrus haemorrhoidalis; and very definitely points out 
that Oestrus bovis Linn. is a composite species, the adult described being a 
species which is a common horse bot and for which he uses the name equt, and 
the larva and habits being those of the common warble flies, for which he uses 
the name bovis. Dipterists have apparently followed Clark’s usage and many 
of them have credited the name equi to Clark rather than to Fabricius. It would 
seem, however, that this is untenable, and that the name equi Clark must be con- 
sidered as a homonym and the species commonly known as equt should have 
a different name. The name intestinalis de Geer is available. Oestrus intesti- 
nalis de Geer was described from the immature stages, but recently has been 
accepted by certain workers as the proper name for equt. 

Students who have claimed that Latreille in 1810 designated the type of 
Oestrus have undoubtedly been in error, because the name equi was not in- 
cluded in the original account of the genus either as a name of a valid species 
or as one of the components of a composite species. From the information 
available—namely, that which has been presented by Dr. Patton and the litera- 
ture which has been examined—the committee is of the opinion that the first 
valid designation for the type of the genus Oestrus is that of Curtis in 1826, 
when he named Oestrus ovis as the type. 

Even admitting that the species equi Fabr., designated type of Oestrus by 
Latreille, 1810, was originally included within the genus by Linnaeus—and this 
can be done only because Fabricius’ equi is a new name for nasalis and haemor- 
rhoidalis—the designation by Latreille would not hold, for the equi he cited 
is a composite of two of the forms originally included and the designation is 
equivalent to citing two of the originally included species as type. Since only 
one of the species originally included can be selected as type, regardless of sub- 
jective synonymy, the 1810 designation of Latreille does not hold. 





No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO I14 7 


According to our findings it is not necessary to set aside any of the Rules 
or Opinions of the International Commission or to suspend the Law of Priority. 
Summarizing briefly the findings, we have the following: 

Oestrus Linn., 1758, type ovis by designation of Curtis, 1826. (Westwood, 
1840 [Intr. Mod. Class. Ins., vol. 2, p. 154] did not concur but desig- 
nated Oestrus bovis Fabr. as type. This selection is untenable, as Curtis’ 
has priority.) 

Syn. Cephalemyia Latr., 1818, type ovis (Monobasic-Isogenotypic). (West- 
wood, 1840, also uses ovis as type of Cephalemyia.) 

Gasterophilus Leach, 1818," proposed for three species, equi Clark, haemor- 
rhoidalis Linn., and clarkii n. sp. Equi was designated as the type by 
Curtis, 1826 (p. 146). (Westwood, 1840, used the same species as type.) 

Hypoderma Latr., 1818, type bovis Linn. as restricted by Clark. 

Cephenemyia Latr., 1818, type (Oestrus trompe Fabr.=) O. nasalis Linn. 
(Monobasic). 

Oedemagena Latr., 1818, type tarandi L. (Monobasic). 

- It is recommended that the foregoing five generic names, with types as desig- 
nated, be placed in the Official List of Generic Names. 

Opinion written by S. A. Rohwer. Concurred in by Drs. J. M. Aldrich, E. A. 


Chapin, A. C. Baker and Carl Heinrich. 

Discussion By SECRETARY.—The Secretary has reverified Linn. 
(1758), and Latr. (181ro and 1818) which are the most important 
papers involving the type designations of Oestrus prior to Curtis 
(1826). He reaches the same conclusion in regard to the invalidity 
of the designation by Latreille. 

On basis of the study by Rohwer and his colleagues, the Secretary 
recommends that the Commission adopt as its opinion the following: 

1. The type of Oestrus Linn., 1758a, 584, is Oestrus ovis, as defi- 
nitely designated (Art. 30g) by Curtis, 18260. 

2. Latreille’s (1810) designation of Oestrus equi as type is not 
valid, as this (equi) contained two of the original species, hence was 
not designation of one original species as type. 

Further the Secretary recommends the adoption of the proposal by 
Rohwer and his colleagues that the following five names be placed 
in the Official List of Generic Names: 

Cephenemyia Latr., 1818, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat., vol. 23, 271, mt. trompe 

Fabr., syn. of Oestrus nasalis Linn., 1758a. 





*The usual reference to this genus is 1817. Although the paper in which the 
generic name was proposed was read before the Wernerian Natural History 
Society on April 6, 1811, it was published in volume 2 of the Memoirs of this 
society, which is dated 1818, and we cannot find any indication in the volume 
itself to prove that it was published in 1817. It is certain that Leach’s paper was 
published prior to Latreille’s because Latreille in his 1818 paper refers to 
Gasterophilus Leach. 


8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Gasterophilus Leach, 1817, Brewster’s Edin. Encycl., vol. 12 (1), 162; tsd. 
(1826; 1840; 1910; 1915) equi of Clark, 1797 [not Fabr., 1787] syn. 
of intestinalis de Geer, 1776. 

Hypoderma Latr., 1818, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat., vol. 23, Sept., 272, mt. bovis 
[not Hypoderma Geoffr., 1828, Dict. Class. Hist. nat., vol. 14, Sept. or 
Oct., 707, mammal]. 

Oedemagena Latr., 1818, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. vol. 23, 272, mt. Oestrus 
tarandi Linn., 1758a. 

Oestrus Linn., 1758a, 584; tsd. (1826; 1910; 1915) ovis. Absolute syn. is 
Cephalemyia Latr., 1818, mt. ovis. 


Opinion prepared by Dr. Rohwer and colleagues. 

Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Chapman, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan 
(D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Stiles, Stone, Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 


Not voting, four (4) Commissioners: Dabbene, Loennberg, Neveu- 
Lemaire, Stejneger. 


No. 6 OPINIONS I05 TO I14 9 


OPINION 107 
Echinocyamus pusillus vs. Echinocyamus minutus 


SUMMARY.—-The case of Echinocyamus pusillus vs. Echinocyamus minutus 
is subject to two diametrically opposed interpretations. On basis of the prin- 
ciple that a name in current use is not to be supplanted by an earlier but 
rarely adopted or an unadopted name unless the argument is unambiguous 
and unless the premises are not subject to difference of opinion, the Commis- 
sion, because of the somewhat uncertain status of minutus, is of the Opinion 
that pusillus 1776 should not be suppressed by minutus 1774. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following case has been submitted by 
Dr. Th. Mortensen, Copenhagen, for Opinion: 


The name pusillus dates from 1776, when O. Fr. Miiller [1776a] in his 
“Zoologiae Danicae Prodromus,” p. 236, established the species Spatagus pusil- 
lus. The diagnosis “ovalis, ambulacris quinis, ano remoto,” although short, is 
sufficient for distinguishing the species from the two other Spatagus-species 
there described, and the species was later on excellently figured on Plate o1 
of the “ Zoologia Danica,’ so that there is not the slightest doubt about which 
species is meant by the “ Spatagus pusillus”’ of the “ Prodromus.” 

In 1778 the name Echinocyamus angulosus was given to the same species by 
N. G. Leske, in his “Additamenta ad Jac. Th. Kleinii Naturalem dispositionem 
Echinodermatum,” p. 151. But, of course, the name pusillus has priority. As a 
matter of fact, this common European species has almost universally been 
designated as Echinocyamus pusillus (O. Fr. Miuller)—until in 1914 H. L. 
Clark, in the work “ Hawaiian and other Pacific Echini. The Clypeastridae, 
Arachnoididae, Laganidae, Fibulariidae and Scutellidae” (Mem. Mus. Comp. 
Zool., vol. 46 (1), p. 61), designated it as Echinocyamus minutus, reviving the 
name Echinus minutus from P. S. Pallas (1774) Spicilegia Zoologica, Fasc. 10, 
stating: “ When Pallas’ description of his Echinus minutus is carefully exam- 
ined in connection with his fig. 25, pl. 1, and due consideration is given to his - 
remarks about habitat and occurrence, it is almost impossible to doubt that 
his name was given to the fibulariid which O. F. Muller two years later called 
Spatagus pusillus. Although Echinocyamus pusillus is the name used in the 
Revision and other later publications, I am therefore obliged to replace it with 
Echinocyamus minutus (Pallas).” 

In my paper “ Notes on some Scandinavian Echinoderms, with Descriptions 
of Two New Ophiurids” (Vidensk. Medd. Dansk Naturhist. Foren., Bd. 72, 
1920, p. 69) I objected to this: “On examining Pallas’ description of this 
‘Echinus minutus’” it is, however, easily seen that he does not name any 
Echinus minutus at all. He writes:* “In Tabula I hujus fasciculi sub figura 
24 & 25 Echinos minutos adjeci, de quibus hic verbulo,” * which means “I have 
added some small sea-urchins.’ Nowhere does he name a species “ Echinus 
minutus”; if he had so named a species he would not have omitted a reference 


*P. S. Pallas, Spicilegia Zoologica, Fasc. 10, 1774 (p. 34). 
*In the quotation erroneously “ verbiculus.” 


© 


Io SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLA/S 


to it in the index at the end of the fascicle, where all the species described are 
very carefully cited; but the name is not found there. Thus the name pusillus, 
published in 1776, undoubtedly has priority, even under the strictest interpre- 
tation of the priority rule. The fact that Gmelin* in [1790] 1788 and Blain- 
ville * in 1834 made the same interpretation as Clark (1914) does not alter the 
fact that there is no “ Echinus minutus Pallas.” 

Furthermore it is beyond doubt that, even if Pallas had really meant to give 
the scientific name Echinus minutus to these small sea-urchins, this name could 
not rightly have been used for Echinocyamus pusillus. There is no doubt that 
his figure 25 really represents this species, as becomes quite evident from his 
statement “Abundat hic autem inter minuta testacea arenae Belgicae”; there 
is no other echinoid occurring on the Belgian coasts with which it could be con- 
founded, and I personally have collected a number of specimens on the sandy 
beach near Ostend. But Pallas refers to two different forms with his “ Echinos 
minutos”; the first of them, fig. 24, “ priore icone expressus subglobosus ex 
Orientali India crebro adfertur” ; this species is beyond doubt a Fibularia, and 
if there had really been an “ Echinus minutus Pallas” the name would then 
have to be applied to this East Indian form, not to the second form referred 
to by Pallas, that from the Belgian coast.” 

In his “ Catalogue of the Recent Sea-Urchins (Echinoidea) in the Collection 
of the British Museum,” 1925, p. 167, H. L. Clark again accepts “ minutus” of 
Pallas [1774, 34] as the proper name of the species in question, stating: “I 
think that Pallas certainly named the small sea-urchins that he figured, Echinus 
minutus; this is clearly shown by the type in which the words are printed. That 
he used the accusative plural instead of the nominative singular is not impor- 
tant, for all through the fascicle he varied case and number of his scientific 
names to suit the sense. The omission of the name from the index is natural, 
as the index includes only the names used for headings of sections, paragraphs, 
etc., printed in big type, and Echinus minutus was not so used. Finally, if 
Echinus minutus is not the name of the objects shown in figs. 24 and 25 of 
Pallas’s plate 1, then there is no name given at all, and this not only does vio- 
lence to the context, but is unique in the fascicle. 

“ Mortensen goes on to say that even if Pallas did create the name Echinus 
minutus, it should be used for the Fibularia that Pallas also figures under his 
‘“Echinos minutos. But again Dr. Mortensen’s reasoning seems to me erro- 
neous. Pallas included at least two species in his Echinus minutus, but Gmelin 
(1788, Syst. Nat. Linn., Ed. 13, p. 3194) very clearly restricted the name to the 
form common on the coast of Belgium.” 

While it must be conceded that Gmelin did restrict the name Echinus minutus 
to the form common on the coast of Belgium (=the only European species of 
the genus Echinocyamus), it still seems clear to me that Pallas did not mean to 
name any species Echinus minutus. True he gives some names in the accusa- 
tive singular—but these are definitely designated as names, viz., p. 33,“ Buccinum 
quod Geuersianum appellabo” and “ quod Helicem Lyonetianum ... . appel- 
lare liceat,” and they are found in the Index. But he does not thus designate 
his “ Echinos minutos” as a name, and it is not found in the Index as are all 
the true names in his work. 


“Linnaeus, Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, cura Gmelin, 1788, p. 3194. [Definitely 
admits and cites “ /chinus minutus’ as a species. | 
*H. de Blainville, Manuel d’Actinologie, 1834, p. 214. [Follows Gmelin.]. 





NO. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO I14 ut 


Other names with certainty referring to the same European species are: 
Echinus pulvinulus Pennant (British Zoology, 1812 [, 140] ) (not in the I. Ed., 
1777). Fibularia tarentina Lamarck, 1816 [b, 17], Echinocyamus minimus 
Girard, Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H., 1850, [367,] Echinocyamus parthenopaeus 
Costa and Echinocyamus speciosus Costa (Monogr. degli Echinociami viventi 
e fossili nelle Province Napolitane, Mem. Atti r. Accad. Sci. Fis. e Matem. 
Napoli III, [14,] 1869). None of these, of course, comes into consideration ; 
neither can the name angulosus of Leske be used, as this is later than the name 
pusillus. The question reduces itself to this: Must the species be named 
pusillus, the name under which the species is first duly described and—excel- 
lently—figured, and under which the species has been universally known for 
more than half a century, or should we reject this name for minutus of Pallas, 
almost certainly not meant by this author as a name, very poorly described, 
exceedingly poorly figured, and only from the locality given recognizable as 
referring partly to the European species of Echinocyamus? 

Discussion.—The Secretary has verified the reference to Pallas, 
1774, which is the most important reference involved in this case. He 
has also reverified certain of the other references which form im- 
portant premises. The article by Pallas is written in Latin and, as 
frequently happens in such circumstances, a confusion can easily arise 
by interpreting as binomials a purely descriptive combination of words 
consisting of a noun and an adjective or by interpreting a binomial 
as descriptive rather than as a taxonomic name. A case in point is 
Pallas, 1772, fase. 9, page 83; “ Cancrum caninum”’ is obviously a 
translation of Hondskrabbe, but it might easily be erroneously inter- 
preted as a specific binominal used possibly in some earlier publica- 
tion, 

The fact that “ Echinos minutos’ is printed in the plural does not 
seem to be decisive as respects the point at issue, for on page 35 
Botryllus stellatus (an singular) is given also as “ Botrylli stellati”’ 
(in plural). 

ECHINOS is printed in small caps while minutos is given in italics. 
This does not appear to give a definite clue; on page 33 the same 
editorial method is used for BUCCINUM (small caps) and monodon 
(italics) which is apparently a specific name and is given in the Index. 

In the interpretation by the Secretary the case at hand is one in 
which there can be a legitimate difference of opinion, and in regard 
to which either of the proposed interpretations appears reasonable. 
The omission of the name from the Index might easily be a purely 
editorial oversight. While inclining to the interpretation advanced 
by Mortensen, the Secretary would not be willing to argue very 
strongly against that advanced by Clark. Under the circumstances 
three courses appear to be open: (1) to decide the case by majority 
vote based upon rather fine distinctions and from the Secretary’s point 


12 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


of view interpretations which are debatable; (2) to follow historical 
method and to accept on the principle of priority the interpretation 
made by the first author who quotes this passage; (3) to decide the 
case on basis of a general principle that in case of doubt it is best 
to accept the interpretation which will upset as little as possible cur- 
rent nomenclature. 

The Secretary recommends that the Commission give as its 
Opinion one in harmony with this third method as applied to this par- 
ticular case. On basis of the premises presented to the Commission 
the Opinion would fall in favor of pusillus. 

Accordingly, the Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt 
as its Opinion the following: 

SumMary.—The case of Echinocyamus pusillus vs. Echinocyamus 
minutus is subject to two diametrically opposed interpretations. On 
basis of the principle that a name in current use 1s not to be sup- 
planted by an earlier but rarely adopted or an unadopted name unless 
the argument is unambiguous and unless the premises are not subject 
to difference of opinion, the Commission, because of the somewhat 
uncertain status of minutus, is of the Opinion that pusillus 1776 
should not be suppressed by minutus 1774. 


The foregoing Opinion was submitted to Commissioner Bather for 
a special study and he has reported as follows: 

The question put by Dr. Mortensen may be resolved into (A) 
a question of interpretation and (B) a question of expediency. 


A. Interpretation of the phrase “ECHINOS minutos.’ Two inter- 
pretations are possible. 
1. That Pallas intended to establish a specific name “ Echinus 
minutus.” 
2. That Pallas was merely referring to some 
which he did not name. 
Interpretation 1. The arguments in favor of this are: 

a. That the words are printed in small capitals for ECHINOS 
and italics for minutos. 

b. That if this be not a name, then the objects depicted in 
Pallas, plate I, figs. 24, 25, are the only objects in the 
fascicle left without a name. 

¢, That Gmelin, 2788, Syst.-Nat. Linnt, ed. “is;npi.sioe 
definitely accepts Echinus minutus as a species, citing Pallas 
(loc. cit.) [N. B. The date of Gmelin tom. et pag. cit. is 


1790]. 


‘ 


“small echini,”’ 


No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO II4 13 


d. That de Blainville, 1834, Manuel d’Actinol., p. 214, follows 
Gmelin. [Referring to a wrong page (86): strictly speak- 
ing he merely quotes Gmelin as well as Miiller, Zool. Dan. ; 
the name de Blainville uses is Echinocyame mignon. | 

Interpretation 2. The arguments in favor of this are: 

a. All species indubitably named are indexed at the end of the 
fascicle—F. minutus is not. 

b. When Pallas does name a species, he leaves no room for 
doubt, but introduces the name by some such phrase as 
“quod ... . appellabo.” 

c. Gmelin may have made a mistake, and except for de Blain- 
ville (who does not give a correct page) the general opin- 
ion of zoologists has been that he did so. 

Comments on the above arguments: 

1. a. There is considerable variety of type used in this Chapter. 
Other names of genera under which new species are pro- 
posed are in full capitals. Italics are used frequently for 
emphasis or distinction, as in this very paragraph. 

1. b. This argument seems to be cancelled by 2. a. But it 
does not seem to be a good argument in itself, for Pallas 
is clearly, as he states, throwing these two little specimens 
in at the last moment, squeezing them in at the bottom of 
a plate, out of order, and jotting down what he calls a 
“ verbulo.” 

I. c. Gmelin takes minutos, but Sherborn (Index Anim.) who 
put in every name he could, and who had Gmelin’s refer- 
ence does not cite Pallas as the authority. Sherborn aside, 
this argument seems balanced by 2. c. 


This leaves only argument 2. b. and that certainly is in itself more 
weighty than any of the others. 

It may be added that the word minutus is used twice again on the 
same page merely to signify small: “ Zoophyta quaedam minuta ”’ is 
the very next sentence. Surely Pallas would not have taken so banal 
a word for a specific name. 

Additional argument in favor of Interpretation 2: Both Mortensen 
and Clark point out that the specimens figured by Pallas represent two 
species, but they do not draw the obvious inference. The words of 
Pallas show that he was aware of this fact ; and part of his “ verbulo ” 
is taken up with showing the difference of form, and by the word 
“autem” he emphasizes also the difference of locality. Had Pallas 
been going to give a name at all he would have named both. 


14 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


On the question of interpretation, it seems that the arguments 
against ‘ Echinos minutos” being a name, if not absolutely decisive, 
are more numerous and more weighty. 


B. Expediency. 

1. In favor of adopting E. minutus, the argument 1s: 

a. That it has been used by Dr. H. L. Clark in his larger 
Memoir on Hawaiian Echini (Mem. Mus. Harvard) and 
in a British Museum Catalogue. 

Against E. minutus the argument is: 

a. The otherwise universal usage of zoologists since O. F. 
Miiller, 1776. 

b. The other historical data submitted are irrelevant. 


iS) 


CoMMENT AND CONCLUSION 


There is no room for doubt that, if the question is to be decided 
on grounds of expediency by Suspension of the Rules, the vote should 
go in favor of pusillus. I therefore beg to report in favor of the third 
course recommended by the Secretary. 

Opinion prepared by Bather and Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by fifteen (15) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Chapman, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan 
(D: S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Loennberg, Stejneger; Stiles, Stome 
Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, two (2) Commissioners: Dabbene, Neveu-Lemaire. 


No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO II4 15 


OPINION 108 
SUSPENSION OF RULES FoR Gazella 1816 


SUMMARY.—Under Suspension of the Rules Guzel/la Blainville, 1816, type 
species Capra dorcas Linn., 1758a, is adopted in preference to Oryx, and is 
hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. 

STATEMENT OF CASE.—See Opinion 90, p. 36. 

Discussion.—The vote taken on Opinion go stood sixteen (16) 
in favor of Suspension of the Rules and adoption of Gazgella, and two 
(2) against this action. 

In accordance with the provisions governing Suspension of the 
Rules, this case was referred to a Special Committee consisting of 
Commissioner Loennberg representing the affirmative, Commissioner 
Dabbene the negative, and -x-Commissioner H. F. Osborn as third 
member of the Committee. 

The votes of the Committee have reached the Secretary; all three 
(3) votes are in the affirmative, a unanimous vote has been obtained, 
Suspension is therefore authorized, and Gazella is to be recognized 
in preference to Oryx. 

The Commission has instructed the Secretary to announce the re- 
sult, and by a vote of thirteen (13) to one (1) Gazella Blainville, 
1816, type Capra dorcas Linn., is hereby placed in the Official List of 
Generic Names. 


16 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


OPINION 109 
SUSPENSION OF RULES FoR Hippotragus 1846 


SUMMARY.—Under Suspension of the Rules (if need be), Hippotragus 
Sundevall, 1846, type species Antilope leucophaea Pallas, 1766, is adopted in 
preference to Egocerus Desmarest, 1822, and Ozanna Reichenbach, 1845, (not 
Aegoceros Pallas, 1811) and is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic 
Names, 

STATEMENT OF CASE.—See Opinion 90, p. 36. 

Discuss1on.—The vote taken on Opinion go stood fourteen (14) 
in favor of Suspension of the Rules and adoption of Hippotragus, and 
four (4) against this action. 

In accordance with the provisions governing Suspension of the 
Rules, this case was referred to a Special Committee consisting of 
Commissioner D. S. Jordan representing the negative, Commissioner 
Loennberg the affirmative, and Ex-Commissioner H. F. Osborn as 
third member of the Committee. 

The votes of the Committee have reached the Secretary; two (2) 
of them are in favor of Suspension of the Rules if necessary to vali- 
date Hippotragus; the third vote upholds Egocerus, but this last vote 
is accompanied by a statement that if this vote is the only negative 
vote, the member of the Committee is willing to change his vote to 
make it unanimous. 

A majority and subsequently a unanimous vote having been obtained 
in this case, Hippotragus is to be recognized in preference to either 
Egocerus or Ozanna. 

The Commission has instructed the Secretary to announce the 
result, and by a vote of thirteen (13) to one (1) Hippotragus Sunde- 
vall, 1846, type Antilope leucophaea Pallas, 1766, is hereby placed in 
the Official List of Generic Names. : 





No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO II4 17 


OPINION 110 
SUSPENSION OF RULES FoR Lagidium 1833 


SUMMARY.—Under Suspension of the Rules Lagidium Meyen, 1833, type 
species Lagidium peruanum Meyen, is adopted in preference to /iscaccia 
Oken, 1816, genotype ‘ /epus chilensis Molina,” and is hereby placed in the 
Official List of Generic Names. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—-See Opinion go, p. 36. 

Discussion.—The vote taken on Opinion go stood sixteen (16) in 
favor of Suspension of the Rules and adoption of Lagidium, and two 
(2) against this action. 

In accordance with the provisions governing Suspension of the 
Rules, this case was referred to a Special Committee consisting of 
Commissioner Apstein representing the affirmative, Commissioner 
Dabbene the negative, and Ex-Commissioner H. F. Osborn as third 
member of the Committee. 

The votes of the Committee have reached the Secretary; all three 
(3) votes are in the affirmative, a unanimous vote has been obtained, 
Suspension is therefore authorized, and Lagidium is to be recognized 
in preference to Viscaccia. 

The Commission has instructed the Secretary to announce the 
result, and by a vote of thirteen (13) to one (1) Lagidium Meyen, 
1833, type Lagidium peruanum Meyen, is hereby placed in the Official 
List of Generic Names. 


18 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL 73 


OPINION 111 
SUSPENSION OF RULES FoR Nycteris 1795 


SUMMARY.—Under Suspension of the Rules Nycteris Cuvier & Geoffroy, 
1795, type species |’espertilio hispidus Schreber, 1774, is adopted in prefer- 
ence to Petalia Gray, 1838, genotype Nycteris javanica Geoffroy, and is hereby 
placed in the Official List of Generic Names. 

STATEMENT OF CASE.—See Opinion go, p. 36. 

Discusston.—The vote taken on Opinion 90 stood sixteen (16) in 
favor of Suspension of the Rules and adoption of Nycteris, and two 
(2) against this action. 

In accordance with the provisions governing Suspension of the 
Rules, this case was referred to a Special Committee consisting of 
Commissioner Hartert representing the affirmative, Commissioner 
Dabbene the negative, and Ex-Commissioner H. F. Osborn as third 
member of the Committee. 

The votes of the Committee have reached the Secretary ; all three 
(3) votes are in the affirmative, a unanimous vote has been obtained, 
Suspension is therefore authorized, and Nycteris is to be recognized 
in preference to Petalia. 

The Commission has instructed the Secretary to announce the re- 
sult, and by a vote of thirteen (13) to one (1) Nycteris Cuvier & 
Geoffroy, 1795, type species Vespertilio hispidus Schreber, is hereby 
placed in the Official List of Generic Names. 


No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO II4 19 


OPINION 112 
SUSPENSION DECLINED FOR Manatus 1772 vs. Trichechus 1758 


SUMMARY.—Suspension of the Rules is declined for J/anaiuws Briinnich, 
1772, type species Trichechus manatus Linn., 1758a, type locality West Indies, 
vs. Trichechus Linn., 1758a, monotype 7. manatus; accordingly, the name 
Trichechus is to be used for the manatee instead of for the walrus. Trichechus 
Linn., 1758a, type 7. manatus is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic 
Names. 

STATEMENT OF CASE.—See Opinion go, p. 36. 

Discussion.—The vote taken on Opinion go stood thirteen (13) 
in favor of Suspension of the Rules and adoption of Manatus, and 
five (5) against this action. 

In accordance with the provisions governing Suspension of the 
Rules, this case was referred to a Special Committee consisting of 
Commissioner K. Jordan representing the affirmative, Commissioner 
Stejneger the negative, and Ex-Commissioner Osborn as third mem- 
ber of the Committee. 

The votes of the Committee have reached the Secretary; two (2) 
of them uphold Trichechus, the third vote is in favor of Suspension 
of the Rules to validate Manatus. A majority vote has been obtained, 
Suspension is declined, and Trichechus is to be recognized in pre- 
ference to Manatus. 

The Commission has instructed the Secretary to announce the re- 
sult, and by a vote of thirteen (13) to one (1) Trichechus Linn., 
1758a, type T. manatus, is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic 
Names. 





20 ; SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


OPINION 113 


Sarcoptes LATREILLE, 1802, TYPE scabici, PLACED IN 
OFFICIAL List 


SUMMARY.—Sarcoptes Latreille dates from 1802 instead of 1804 or 1806 
as frequently quoted. It was originally monotypic, containing only Acarus 
scabiei, The 1810 type designation of Acarus passerinus is invalid under Arti- 
cle 30c and 30ea. The acceptance of Acarus scabiei as type species of Acarus 
is invalidated by Article 30g, according to which Acarus siro (syn. farinae) 
is the type of Acarus. Sarcoptes Latr., 1802, mt. scabici is hereby placed in 
the Official List of Generic Names. 


PRESENTATION OF CASE.—This case has been presented to the Com- 
mission in correspondence and verbally by several persons. The docu- | 
ments are too extensive to be reprinted here in full but they may be 
summarized briefly as follows: 


A. Oudemans maintains that the pre-Linnaean history of the generic name 
Acarus and of the specific name siro clearly shows that these two names were 
used for the itch mite of man. In a very learned discussion he traces this use 
of the word Acarus to the following dates: 


1557, 1507, 1577, 1622, 1630, 1634, 1641, 1650, 1657, 1658, 1660, 1663, 1664, 
1667, 1671, 1675, 1676, 1677, 1680, 1686, 1680, 1691, 1692, 1696, 1699, 1700, 
1703, 1708, 1722, 1724, 1733, 1735, 1739, 1740, 1756; 
and this use of the word siro to the following dates: 

1513, 1516, 1570, 1602, 1607, 1608, 1619, 1631, 1641, 1650, 1652, 1656, 1660, 
1661, 1670, 1676, 1679, 1680, 1682, 1686, 1687, 1689, 1691, 1695, 1697, 1699, 
1701, 1703, 1708, 1700, 1716, 1717, 1719; 1722; 1723, 1724, 1720, 1731, 4990 
1735, 1736, 1740, 1741, 1751, 1753, 1754, 1756. 

Oudemans’ position is that Linnaeus chose the generic name Acarus because 
this had become classic and that the species present to his mind was the itch 
mite; further that Acarus siro permitted him to avoid tautonymy, and to his 
mind Acarus siro was consequently and basically the itch mite, and this species, 
therefore, he (Oudemans) definitely takes as type species of Acarus. 

B. Vitzthum (1927, Zool. Anz., v. 72 (3-4), June 20, pp. 115-126) reviews the 
literature from 1758 to 1927 and arguing on basis of the International Rules 
he concludes that Acarus siro in the sense of the itch mite is the type species of 
Acarus and that Acarus passerinus is the type species of Sarcoptes. 

C. Several authors date Sarcoptes as 1804 or 1806; if this date be accepted 
the designation of passerinus as type species of Sarcoptes by Latreille, 1810a, 
p. 425, is valid, and will result in a considerable amount of confusion in nomen- 
clature of generic, subfamily, and family names in zoology, and in considerable 
confusion in terminology in human and veterinary medicine and pathology. 
Under this premise the question of a Suspension of Rules comes up for con- 
sideration. 


wr 


No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO II4 21 


D. Some authors point out that the earliest publication of the generic name 
Sarcoptes was by Latreille, 1802, and that at this date the name was monotypic, 
since only Acarus scabiei was mentioned in connection with it. 


The Commission is requested to review the premises and to render 
an Opinion. 

Discusston.—This case is, in some respects, much more complicated 
than at first it appears. To understand it, one must start with Lin- 
naeus, 1758a. The case involves the names Acarus 1758, Siro 1750, 
1795, 1796, 1802, Sarcoptes 1802, Glyciphagus 1838, Eusarcoptes 
1888, and Analges 1818. 

Linnaeus, 1758a, 615-618, used Acarus as generic name for 31 
species ; of these, the following are of special importance in this case: 


No. 10. A. passerinus. Habitat in Passeribus variis. 

No. 15. A. siro, which he divided under two headings in quoting earlier lit- 
erature, namely, farinae and scabiei. “ Habitat in Farina Europae, Americae. 
Inter Sirones farinae, scabiei, dysenteriae, hemitritaet, non reperi alias differ- 
entias, quam a loco petitas. Amoen. acad. 3. p. 333.” 

No. 16. A. exulcerans. Habitat in Scabie ferina. 


According to the Linnaean rule, Article 30h, the following most 
common and medicinal species come into special consideration as 
possible genotype : 


aegyptius,; tsd. of Hyalomma 1844; 
. reduvius; syn. of (6) ricinus; 
americanus; now in Amblyomma 1844; 
ricinus; tsd. (1810) of Ixodes 1796; 
. siro; later restricted to farinae by Latreille: 
farinae; habitat in Farina, Europe (tpd.) and America; 
scabiei; on Homo, type host, Europe (tpd.); mt. of Sarcoptes 1802; 
tsd. of Acarus by Oudemans; 
16. A. exulcerans; habitat in Scabie ferina. 


AR wD 
SRA 


_ 
Ors 


Of these 6 Linnaean species, A. siro in the sense of scabiei could 
best have been chosen as type. 

Kniphof (1759, De Pediculus inguinalibus insectis et vermibus 
homini molestis, pp. 20-26) cites § XXI Acarus, with a number of 
subheadings “ Acari capitis,’ “ Acari scabiei,”’ ete., which Sherborn 
(1902a Index) does not cite as specific combinations as of 1759, and 
the Secretary inclines to agree with him. On page 20, Kniphof cites 
“ Cyro, Siro,’ and on p. 52, he cites “ Sirones.” Sherborn (1902, 
909) accepts Siro from p. 52, as of generic status but the reason is 
not clear to the Secretary, and on this account he (the Secretary) 
accepts this Siro as dating from Sherborn, 1902a, 900, instead of from 
Kniphof, 1759, 52. Linné (1758a, 617) also cited Sirones but ap- 
parently not as a generic name. 


22 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Latreille, 1795 (Mag. encycl., v. 4, p. 7) and 1796a (Precis) pub- 
lished two papers in which he cited single species as examples for var- 
ious acarine genera, and these examples are interpreted by some 
authors as definite designations of type species for the genera in 
question. 

For the generic names which are new in these two papers this in- 
terpretation is undoubtedly correct, for these particular genera are 
monotypic by original publication. But for those generic names which 
are old—namely, published prior to these two papers—citation of the 
species is not made in such a way that they can be interpreted as 
types under the following provision of Article 30g: “ The meaning 
of the expression ‘ select the type’ is to be rigidly construed. Mention 
of a species as an illustration or example of a genus does not con- 
stitute a selection of a type.” Accordingly, for the older genera these 
citations are to be interpreted as examples, not as type species. With 
this conclusion in mind some of the existing confusion can be 
cleared. 

Sarcoptes Latreille, 1802b, Hist. nat. d’Ins., v. 3, 67, was first pub- 
lished as monotypic, namely mt. Acarus scabiet. Article 30c. 

In the same publication Latreille (1802b) cites (p. 64) Acarus 
example A. siro syn. Tyroglyphus 1796, mt. Acarus siro and (p. 62) 
Siro Latreille, 1795, 19, with Siro rubens Latreille; as rubens is the 
first and only species mentioned with the generic name Siro it be- 
comes automatically the type of Siro. See Art. 30g and Opinion 46. 

This publication of 1802 definitely fixes the type species of 
Sarcoptes. 

The type species of Acarus was first definitely designated by 
Latreille, 1810a, p. 425, when he cited as type Acarus siro from 
which scabiet was eliminated, thus leaving siro in the sense of farinae. 





The question at issue can be closed with the works of Latreille, 
1802 and 1810, but for a clearer understanding of the various com- 
plications which have arisen the following table of historical data is 
given herewith. 


Acarus Linn., 1758a, 344, 615, with 31 species, including siro (with 2 varieties, 
farinae [tsd.] and scabiei [eliminated]). [Objective syn. Tyroglyphus 
Latr., 1802, mt. siro (i.e., farinae).] 

1705: Acarus coleoptratus Linn., 1758a, 616, no. 13, cited as example (not as 
type) by Latreille, 1795, Mag. encycl., v. 4, 19. [Cf. Notaspis Herm., 
1804]. Some authors have construed this as type designation. 

1796: Acarus geniculatus Linn., 1758a, 617, no. 17, cited as example (not as 
type) by Latreille, 1796a, 184. Some authors have construed this as type 
designation. 

[1796: siro [not scabiei] mt. of Tyroglyphus by Latreille, 1796a, 185.] 


No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO II4 23 


1802: Acarus siro Linn., 1758a, p. 616, no. 15, cited as example (not as type) by 
Latreille, 1802b, 64, with Tyroglyphus 1796 as syn. In 1796 this was mt. of 
Tyroglyphus |cf. farinae 1758]; scabici eliminated to Sarcoptes as mt. 
Some authors have construed this as type designation. 

1810: Acarus siro Fabr. definitely designated type by Latreille, 1810a, 425. 
[The variety scabiet had been eliminated to Sarcoptes, leaving farinae as 
type of siro.] 

1826: Acarus siro [not including scabiei| Linn., definitely designated type by 
Heyden, 1826, Isis, 611. 

1834: Acarus domesticus de Geer, 1 
Dugeés, 1834. Not an original ( 
Glyciphagus. 

1877: Acarus domesticus cited as Ist species (not as definite type designation) 
by Canestrini and Fanzago, 1877, 196, Atti r. Inst. Ven. Sci. Lett. Art., v. 4. 

1926: tsd. Acarus siro (= scabiei) definitely designated type by Oudemans, in 
various articles and letters. 

1927: type siro 1758 (syn. scabiei) by Vitzthum, 1927, Zool. Anz., v. 72, 115-120. 


8, definite but erroneous designation by 


77 
1758) species, hence pseudotype, etc. Cf. 


Thus, under the Rules, Acarus supplants Tyroglyphus, unless the 
Rules be suspended by suppressing sfcarus entirely on utilitarian 
grounds. 


Sarcoptes Latr., 1802b, 67, mt. scabiei. 

1802: Acarus scabiei Linn., 1758a, 616, no. 15 var., only species cited for 
Sarcoptes. 

[1808: nidulans classified by Nitzsch, 1808, FE. and G. Encycl., v. 1, p. 251, as a 
Sarcoptes.] 

1810: etd. passerinus Linn., 1758a, 616, no. 10 (not an original, 1802, species), 
definitely designated type by Latr., 1810a, 425. [Transferred to Analges 
by Nitzsch, 1818.] 

1826: etd. nidulans Nitzsch (not an original, 1802, species) definitely desig- 
nated type by Heyden, 1826, 611. 

1861: emended to Sarcoptus Mogq.-Tand., 1861a, 307. 

1888: subg. Eusarcoptes Rail., 1888, tsd. (1927) scabiei by Stiles and Hassall, 
1927, 263. 

1892: emended to Sarcopta Anacker, 1892b, 61. 

——: emended to Sarkoptes by various German authors. 

1903: siro assumed to be type by absolute tautonymy of Siro Latr., 1795, by 
Michael, 1903, 102, and syn. of scabiet. See, however, Siro rubens in Latr., 
1802b. 

1915: scabiei accepted as type by Apstein, 1915a. 

1927: scabiei accepted as mt. of Sarcoptes by Stiles and Hassall, 1927, p. 263. 

1927: passerinus accepted as type by Vitzthum, 1927, Zool. Anz., v. 72, 125. 


In view of the foregoing data the Secretary recommends that the 
Commission adopt as its Opinion the following : 

Sarcoptes Latreille dates from 1802 instead of 1804 or 1806 as 
frequently quoted. It was originally monotypic, containing only 
Acarus scabiet. The 1810 type designation of Acarus passerinus is 
invalid under Article 30c and 30ea. The acceptance of Acarus scabiet 


24 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


as type species of Acarus is invalidated by Article 30g according to 
which Acarus siro (syn. farinae) is the type of Acarus. 

Sarcoptes Latr., 1802, mt. scabiei is hereby placed in the Official 
List of Generic Names. 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by fifteen (15) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Dabbene, Chapman, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Ishikawa, 
Jordan (D.S.), Jordan (IK), Kolbe, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone, Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, two (2) Commissioners: Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire. 


No. 6 OPINIONS 105 TO II4 25 


OPINION 114 


UNDER SUSPENSION Simia, Simia satyrus AND Pithecus 
ARE SUPPRESSED 
SUMMARyY.—Under Suspension of the Rules the names Simia, Simia satyrus, 


and Pithecus are hereby suppressed on the ground that. their retention under 
the Rules will produce greater confusion than uniformity. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—See Opinion go, p. 38; and The Nomen- 
clature for Man, the Chimpanzee, the Orang-Utan, and the Barbary 
Ape < Bul. 145, Hyg. Lab., U. S. Pub. Health Service, Wash., 1927, 
pp. 1-66, figs. 1-16. 

Discussion.—The vote taken on Opinion 90 stood ten (10) in 
favor of, and eight (8) against, suspending the Rules in order to 
validate Simia, type S. satyrus, for the Orang-Utan; and nine (9) 
to nine (9) on the proposition to suspend the Rules in order to validate 
Anthropopithecus Blainville, 1838, type Simia troglodytes Gmelin, 
1788, for the chimpanzee. According to the premises of the proposals 
which failed of acceptance, the specific name satyrus Linn., 1758, 
would have to be applied to the chimpanzee, while the application of 
Simia remained in doubt; according to the appellants, Simia would 
supplant Macaca (type sylvanus), but according to some authors 
Simia would become the generic name of the chimpanzee in place 
of Pan. 

The complicated nomenclatorial situation was studied in consider- 
able detail by Stiles and Orleman (1927) who invited attention to the 
potential danger which might arise in medical and public health work 
because of continued confusion, and they expressed the view that the 
nomenclatorial situation in regard to Sima, S. satyrus, and Pithecus, 
was so hopeless that the most practical solution of the problem was 
to be found in a total suppression of these three names. The data 
shown in the bulletin (no. 145) are made part of the premises of this 
Opinion 114. 

On motion, the Commission voted (12 to 2) to reopen the case 
of Simia in order to examine the detailed facts to be presented. 

At the Budapest (1926) meeting of the Commission, Commissioner 
Apstein was appointed a committee of one to consider the case and 
to report his recommendations to the Commission. His report was 
discussed at length by the Commission which unanimously adopted 
two resolutions, namely: 





26 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 78 


(1) That the names Simia, S. satyrus, and Pithecus, be entirely 
suppressed under Suspension of the Rules; and 

(2) That except as already provided in the foregoing (1st resolu- 
tion), the Law of Priority be enforced. 

Voting in favor of these two resolutions were: Apstein, Bather, 
Hartert, Jordan (K.), Muesebeck, Stejneger, and Stiles. 

Voting negatively, none. 

Not voting, Howard, and all absent Commissioners. 

The resolutions in question were reported to the absent Commis- 
sioners in Circular Letter No. 128, and affirmative votes were received 
from Commissioners Horvath, Jordan (D. S.), and Stone; no nega- 
tive vote was received; thus the final vote is ten (10) to none (0). 

The vote returned by Commissioner Loennberg referred to the 
original Opinion go, not to the motion before the Commission. 

No vote on the resolutions has been returned by nine (g) Commis- 
sioners who had an opportunity to vote: Chapman, Dabbene, Hand- 
lirsch, Ishikawa, Kolbe, Loennberg, Monticelli (deceased), Neveu- 
Lemaire, Warren. 

Circular Letter No. 128 was held open fourteen (14) months for 
vote, and was finally closed February 12, 1929. 


1 alee 


on 


Fs 
are 


fe ee es 


Re ee a eS 





be Or 
a f F1C¢ 
SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 


VOLUME 73, NUMBER 7 


| OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 


COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 


| NOMENCLATURE 
7 OPINIONS 115 TO 123 
a 
i, 


(PUBLICATION 3072) 


CITY OF WASHINGTON 
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 
JANUARY 10, 1931 





x 
ty 
ae) 





SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 


VOLUME 73, NUMBER 7 


OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


OPINIONS 115 TO 123 


eSeeves 


ERME IN CRE 
ae 
ED 
Oy % 





(PUBLICATION 3072) 


CITY OF WASHINGTON 
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 
JANUARY 10, 1931 














The Lord Baltimore Press 


BALTIMORE, MD., U. S. A. 








OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


OPINIONS 115 TO 123 


OPINION 115 
Stratus oF Leucochilus 


SUMMARY .—The Commission herewith suppresses Leucochilus von Martens, 
1881, in favor of Leucochila von Martens, 1860, type Pupa fallax Say. Any 
other course would involve risk of lasting and constant confusion in two 
rather closely allied genera. 


STATEMENT OF CASE—Dr. H. A. Pilsbry, of the Academy of 
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, has presented the following case 
for opinion : 


Leucochila was proposed by von Martens (Die Heliceen, 1860, p. 206, “ Typus 
Pupa fallax Say”) for two series of species (now ranked as two genera) : 
a, which we may call the series of Pupa fallax, and b, that of Pupa armifera. 

In 1881 (in von Martens’ Conchologische Mittheilungen, p. 64) Dr. O. Boett- 
ger proposed to relegate the group of Pupa fallax to the prior genus Buliminus, 
and to retain the name Leucochilus for the relationship of Pupa armifera. At 
the same time, he cited Leucochila von Martens as equivalent to Leucochilus, as 
in the appended facsimile: 


“TI. Sect. Leucochilus m. 


“ — Leucochila Albers-Martens, Heliceen II. Ausg. 1860, S. 296. 

“Tndem ich die ungezahnten Arten der Gruppe der P. fallax Say aus vor- 
benannter Section ausscheide und sie als Section zur Gattung Buliminus Ehrenb. 
verweise, halte ich die Benennung Leucochilus nur fiir die meist bleichgefarbten, 
stark bezahnten, mit kraftiger, geschwungener, haufig zweitheiliger Parietal- 
lamelle versehenen Formen der Verwandtschaft der P. armifera Say aufrecht.” 

Q—Can Leucochilus stand for the Pupa armifera group? Or is it synonym 
of Leucochila? Or to be rejected as homonym of the prior Leucochila? 

Observations —Usage is divided. Several German authors have uséd Leuco- 
chilus in the sense of Boettger. All recent American authors who have dealt 
with the group have apparently thought that name unavailable, having used 
the later name Bifidaria Sterki for the group containing Pupa armuifera. 

No type species has been designated for Leucochilus except as implied in 
the above extract. 

The name Bifidaria, for the same group, was properly defined and supplied 
with a type. As the group is chiefly American, and does not occur in the 
European fauna, no name for it can be said to be generally accepted in Europe, 
nearly all authors mentioning the species using von Martens’ nomenclature of 


1860. 


SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS, VOL. 73, No. 7 


to 


SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLS 


Discussion.—The foregoing case includes two distinct questions. 
First, is Leucochilus, 1881, an objective synonym of Leucochila, 
1860? And second, is Leucochilus, 1881, a homonym of Leucochila, 
1860? 

First—According to the premises, Leucochila, 1860, has Pupa 
fallax as type by original designation and this type designation settles 
for all time the type of Leucochila.’ 

In 1881 Leucochilus is essentially a new generic name, and as Pupa 
fallax is expressly excluded by Boettger from membership in Leuco- 
chilus, it is clear that Leucochilus cannot have fallax as its type, and 
therefore that it is not an objective synonym of Leucochuila. 

For Leucochilus, 1881, only one species was mentioned in the 
original publication, namely, Pupa armifera Say, and this is therefore 
type of Leucochilus by monotypy.. 

If fallax and armifera are united in one genus, Leucochilus, 1881, 
becomes a subjective synonym of Leucochila, 1860. 

Accordingly, the first question is to be answered as follows: Leuco- 
chilus, 1881, is theoretically excluded from being an objective syno- 
nym of Leucochila, 1860, but theoretically it might be a subjective 
synonym. 

Second.—The second question, whether the existence of Leucochila 
precludes the use of Leucochilus, represents one of a series of cases 
which the Commission has discussed for more than 25 years, but upon 
which the Commission has never been able to reach a satisfactory 
agreement involving an Opinion that can be applied to all cases. The 
best the Commission has ever been able to do is expressed in the 
recommendation cf Article 36, which reads as follows: 

It is well to avoid the introduction of new generic names which differ from 
generic names already in use only in termination or in a slight variation in 
spelling which might lead to confusion. But when once introduced, such names 


are not to be rejected on this account. Examples: Picus, Pica; Polyodus, 
Polyodon, Polyodonta, Polyodontas, Polyodontus. 


In this unsatisfactory status of the results, all the Commission can 
expect to do is to build up a series of Opinions on special cases in the 
hope that these Opinions can some day be formulated into a principle. 
On one occasion a special subcommittee studied the question at issue 
and reported as follows: 

The Committee is of the opinion that the use of a word as a generic name 


in one gender does not necessarily preclude its use in a different gender for 
another genus, but it considers such use eminently undesirable. 


*Leucochila Albers in Von Martens, 1860, 296, tod. Pupa fallax Say— 
a—for fallax, modica, chordata, pacifica. 
b—pellucida, riisei, corticaria, ripicola, contracta, armifera. 


NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 3 


In the case now before the Commission, it would appear from the 
premises that Leucochila and Leucochilus represent very closely allied 
groups. So closely allied, in fact, that the possible concurrent use of 
the two names might lead to serious confusion if both names were to 
become valid. If these two names belonged in widely different groups, 
for instance, in mammals and sponges, the chances for confusion 
would be very much reduced and another point of view might, perhaps, 
be entirely justified. The case represents, in fact, one very similar to 
Endamoeba and Entamoeba and on practical grounds it is in the 
interest of clarity that Leucochilus be definitely suppressed. 

Accordingly, the Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt 
as its Opinion the following : 

1. Leucochilus, 1881, is theoretically excluded from being an objec- 
tive synonym of Leucochila, 1860, but it might be, theoretically a 
subjective synonym ; and 

2. For the purpose of this Opinion, and on practical grounds (in 
order to prevent confusion), the Commission herewith considers 
Leucochilus, 1881, a homonym of Leucochila, 1860, and therefore 
not entitled to stand. 

Opinion written by the Secretary. 

The foregoing draft of Opinion was forwarded to B. B. Wood- 
ward of London, England, with request that he give the Com- 
mission the benefit of his views. He replied as follows: 

Leucochilus and Leucochila are absolute homonyms. They are merely the 
masculine and feminine forms of one and the same name. 

It is too generally overlooked that these inflections of gender were universally 
held by the early systematic zoologists to be such and not to qualify in any way 
for generic distinction. To alter this now would create an untold amount of dis- 
turbance in past nomenclature, which is quite unjustifiable and would be 
mischievous. 

The framers of the original Rules were all good systematic zoologists as well 
as good scholars. They took this view so much as a matter of course that they 
did not think of specifying anything so obvious to them in their Rules. They 
never dreamt that a later school of enthusiastic but less well-informed natural- 
ists (zoologically and classically) would arise to challenge it. 

The Recommendation attached to Rule 36 does not really touch the present 
or similar cases, of which there are far too many for a piecemeal consideration 
of them to be profitably undertaken. 

In my opinion the Commission would be best advised, taking advantage of 
the present instance, to lay down the principle that: ‘‘ Names of genera differ- 
ing only in their termination, when that is indicative solely of gender, cannot 
be employed for distinct genera, but must be considered to be homonyms.” 
Occasion might be taken to point out that the frequently misquoted case of 
Picus and Pica does not apply here since these names are two distinct Latin 
substantives, not modern makeups and not merely variations in gender of one 
and the same word. 


4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


All papers were then forwarded to Commissioner Chapman for 
review and opinion. His report reads as follows: 


Re Leucochila and Leucochilus, after examining the evidence for and against 
the use of Leucochilus Boettger, I have drawn the following conclusions: 

1.—Since Leucochilus was suggested by Boettger as an equivalent term to 
Leucochila (but with emended spelling), of the section P. armifera, it is clearly 
a homonym of Leucochila. 

2.—Leucochilus only differs in generic ending, and therefore it is inadvisable 
to retain it in such closely related groups where it would be a source of confusion. 

3.—For the above reason that Leucochilus Boettger must be taken as a 
homonym, I would suggest the use of Bifidaria Sterki, as it has been properly 
defined and supplied with a type. 


The papers were submitted also to Dr. Paul Bartsch, United States 
National Museum, who writes: 


I have talked this matter over with Dr. Dall and we both agree with you. 


With the foregoing data, the Secretary requested an informal 
ballot from the Commission. As basis for the vote the Secretary 
proposed the following summary: 


Upon utilitarian grounds, regardless of all other considerations, the Com- 
mission hereby declares Leucochilus, 1881, as suppressed in favor of Leucochila, 
1860; any other action would involve risk of lasting and constant confusion in 
two rather closely allied genera. 


In Circular Letter No. 156, the Secretary reported as follows: 


Eight (8) Commissioners (Chapman, Dabbene, Horvath, Neveu-Lemaire, 
Stiles, Stone, and Warren) accept the Opinion as written, without comment. 

Three (3) Commissioners accept the general result of the Opinion, but com- 
ment as follows: 


Hartert: Opinion concurred in “but NOT ON UTILITARIAN GROUNDS which is 
absolutely dangerous and objectionable! It is not in the conception of the 
‘Rules. ” [But cf. wording of suspension—C. W. S.] 

Jordan (David Starr): “I vote with the affirmative on the view that the 
suspension of Leucochilus will avoid confusion. It is now on the basis 
that new names for new genera should not be formed by change of gender 
of old names. Gasterostea Sauvage (not valid) was proposed for a sec- 
tion of Gasterosteus. But I shall vote that names differently spelled 
(except through carelessness) are different names until we have a defi- 
nite decision. It is not, as Mr. Woodward writes, a matter of ‘igno- 
rance.’ I am willing to take either view if properly defined and a majority 
agrees. In Ichthyology we have some 40 cases and an agreement is very 
desirable.” 

Jordan (Karl): ‘“ From the facts 4 

(1) That Boettger says: ‘ich halte die Benennung Leucochilus fur 

. aufrecht’ and 
(2) That Boettger states Leucochilus = Leucochila Albers-Martens, 
it follows that Boettger did not propose a new name, but retained the old 


ee 
* 


NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 5 


name in an emended form. Such emendations were quite in vogue until 
recently. But an emended name is not a new name and is nomenclatorially 
identical with the name in its original spelling. 

The question as to whether generic names differing in endings only 
should be treated as different does not arise here at all.” 


Commissioner Apstein writes: “ Leucochila vy. Martens und Leucochilus 
Boettger sind 2 verschiedene Namen und konnen deshalb neben einander be- 
stehen.” In reply to this note the Secretary wrote to Commissioner Apstein, 
“T interpret your vote as negative in the case of Circular Letter No. 131,” to 
which Commissioner Apstein replied, “Ich stimme zu, Leucochilus, 1860.” The 
Secretary is not yet clear in regard to Commissioner Apstein’s vote but he inter- 
prets it again as permitting Leucochilus, 1881, and Leucochila, 1860, to exist 
together under the conditions mentioned in Circular Letter No. 131. 

As eight (8) Commissioners agreed without reservation, as one 
Commissioner objected simply to the expression “ upon utilitarian 
grounds,” and as two other Commissioners agreed as to the end result, 
the Secretary suggested that the summary be amended as follows : 

Alternative A.—SumMMAry: The Commission herewith suppresses Leuco- 
chilus, 1881, in favor of Leucochila, 1860; any other action would involve risk 
of lasting and constant confusion in two rather closely allied genera. 

The foregoing summary would seem to meet the objection offered 
by Commissioner Hartert, and would also meet the viewpoint of 
Commissioner Karl Jordan, while it would at the same time give the 
result desired by all of the other Commissioners who voted in the 
affirmative. In case the Secretary has misinterpreted Commissioner 
Apstein’s position, this summary would appear to meet his views also. 

An alternative to the foregoing summary might read as follows: 

Alternative B—Summary: Leucochilus, 1881, can be interpreted as an 


emendation of Leucochila, 1860; Boettger, 1881, inadvertently fell into error 
when he eliminated the type species fallax, from Leucochila, 


The Secretary is prepared to change his vote to conform to this 
second summary in case a majority of the Commission prefers this 
to Alternative A. Under these circumstances he would rewrite and 
resubmit the Opinion. 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Alternative A was approved by a vote of 13 to I as follows: 

For Alternative A, thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, Chap- 
man, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan 
(D. S.), Jordan (K.), Silvestri, Stiles, Stone, Warren. 

For Alternative B, one (1) Commissioner: Bather. 

Not voting, four (4) Commissioners: Kolbe, Loennberg, Neveu- 
Lemaire, Stejneger. 


6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


OPINION 116 


Bulimus Scopout, 1777, vs. Bulinus MUELLER, 1781, VS. 
Bulimus BRUGUIERE, 1792 


SUMMARY .—The Commission does not interpret Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, as 
an obvious typographical error; the premises do not show that the genotype 
(which must be selected from the four originally included species) has been 
definitely and properly designated. Bulinus Mueller, 1781, has for its type 
Bulinus senegalensis, and is not invalidated by Bulimus, 1777. Bulimus Bru- 
guiére, 1792, type hacmastomus seu oblonga is a dead homonym of Bulimus, 


1777- 
STATEMENT OF CASE.—Dr. H. A. Pilsbry, of Philadelphia, presents 
the following case for Opinion: 


The questions the Commission is asked to decide are: 

1. Can Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, be retained with its original orthography and 
restricted to one of the four Linnean species mentioned by Scopoli? 

2. Will the use of Bulinus O. F. Mueller, 1781, be considered inadmissible on 
account of the prior Bulimus?* 

3. Can B. senegalensis O. F. Mueller, properly be considered type of Bulinus 
Mueller, thus preserving the traditional meaning of the term? 

The name “Le Bulin, Bulinus” was introduced by Adanson in his Histoire 
nat. du Sénégal, Coquillages, 1757, p. 5, pl. 1. His work was pre-Linnean, but 
its nomenclature was in the main Linnean. He recognized genera and species, 
each denoted by single terms, but he did not use them in combination, and in the 
case of monotypic genera, such as Bulinus, Coretus, Pedipes, he did not name 
the species further, the generic term serving for both genus and species. 

The first post-Linnean author to take up the matter was Scopoli, Introductio 
ad Historiam Naturalium, 1777, who on p. 392 introduces: 

“64. Bulimus. Adans. Testa univalvis, non umbilicata; apertura ovali. Mollus- 
cum tentaculis binis, basi appendiculatis; puncto ophtalmoide distincto aut radi- 
cali Swammerdam. Tab. IX. Fig. 4. 

“Helix putris Linn., 1758a, 774, fragilis Linn., 1758a, 774, stagnalis Linn., 
1758a, 774, tentaculata Linn., 1758a, 774, nec non aliae non paucae terrestres 
Cl. Millerii. 

“Pedipes Adanson, diversus Testae apertura dentata.” 

The generic characters given apply well to the species he mentioned, which 
belong to three modern genera: 

Helix. putris to Succinea. 

Helix fragilis and stagnalis to Lymnaea. 

Helix tentaculata to Bithynia. 

Scopoli did not refer to Adanson’s species except so far as may be implied by 
adopting a modification of his name. [His differential diagnosis, as respects 
Pedipes, is in harmony with Adanson, 1757, pp. 6, 12—C. W. S.] 


*The names Bulimus and Bulinus have been in common use, without con- 
fusion, for about a century, for different genera of mollusks. 


NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 7 


Scopoli subsequently used Bulimus for a land snail similar in general shape 
to the species he had formerly included, but afterward found to be generically 
distinct. The name Bulimus remained in universal use for this last group until 
quite recent times. 

Dall, 1892, Trans. Wagner Free Inst. Sci., vol. 3 (2), pp. 334-335, thought 
that Bulimus would have to be restricted to Helix tentaculata, though he did 
not expressly name that as its type. 

A similar view was taken by Pilsbry, 1895-96, Manual of Conchology (2nd 
ser.), vol. 10, p. 3, who wrote: 

“As Scopoli quotes the name as of Adanson, it has been surmised that 
‘Bulimus’ was a typographical error for ‘ Bulinus.’ Whether this was the case 
or not would have absolutely no effect upon our use of the name, for (1) Scopoli’s 
group does not rest upon Adanson for its elucidation, nor does he refer to 
Adanson’s page or plate; (2) that it was a typographical error cannot be 
proven; it may have been an emendation on etymological grounds and Scopoli’s 
subsequent use of the same orthography would show it to have been a deliberate 
change; and finally (3) Adanson being pre-Linnean cannot prejudice properly 
proposed post-Linnean names. 

“It would appear that Bulimus Scopoli, by process of elimination, must re- 
place the generic name Bithynia.” 

Kennard and Woodward, Proc. Malacological Society of London, December, 
1924, vol. 16, p. 126, have reviewed the several opinions on Bulimus Scopoli, 
concluding that “ Bulimus was an obvious mistranscription for Bulinus; it must 
be treated as such, and discarded in future literature.” 

It may be remarked here that if Bulimus be synonymized with Bulinus Adan- 
son, its type will become Bulinus senegalensis Mueller, and unless the name be 
emended, it will displace the genus Bulinus O. F. Mueller, 1781, a name very 
widely used in zoological and medical literature. 


Bulinus O. F. Mueller 


Bulinus “Adanson” O, F. Mueller, 1781, Der Naturforscher, vol. 15, pp. 5 
and 6. For four species: Bulinus perla (= Physa fontinalis (Linnaeus) ), B. 
turritus, B. gelatinus, and B. senegalensis (this last based upon Adanson’s “le 
Bulin, Bulinus”). Type by tautonymy: Bulinus senegalensis O. F. Mueller, 
“Ye Bulin” of Adanson. 

The name Bulinus was introduced into binomial nomenclature by O. F. 
Mueller. He states that his intention was to provide genera for the fresh-water 
snails with two bristle-shaped tentacles with eyes at their inner bases. He sug- 
gests that the ‘“ Tellerschnecken” keep the name Planorbis while Adanson’s 
name Bulinus could be accepted for the ‘‘ Eyformigen.”* Of the latter, four 
species were known to him. The Bilinus perla was fully described and figured, 
and is recognized to be Physa fontinalis (Linn.). This species was designated 
type of Bulinus by Hermannsen (1846, Index Gen. Malac., vol. I, p. 140). 


*“ So kann doch bis dahin, den Schneckenliebhabern zu Gefallen, die den Be- 
griff einer Tellerschnecke bey dem Eyformigen nicht ausstehen konnen, der 
Name Tellerschnecke denen mit platter Schaale verbleiben, und die mit lan- 
glichen Schaalen den Adansonischen Namen Bulinus annehmen.” (1781, Der 
Naturforscher, Halle, vol. 15, p. 6.) 


8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Mueller’s fourth species was Bulinus senegalensis defined by a reference to 
Adanson, 1757, Hist. Sénégal, Hist. des Coquillages, p. 5, pl. 1. He also states 
that “Adanson erfand ihr einen neuen Geschlechtsnamen (Bulinus).’ Obviously, 
therefore, Adanson’s Bulinus becomes type of Bulinus by absolute tautonymy * 
Otherwise the name Bulinus Mueller, 1781, would supersede Physa Draparnaud, 
1801, a name very widely used and universally accepted. ; 

The status of Bulinus Mueller has been discussed by Von Martens,” who ac- 
cepted Physa fontinalis as its type, but refused to substitute Bulinus for Physa. 
Later, Dall * went over the ground, reaching a conclusion which we accept with- 
out reserve. Finally Kennard and Woodward* considered the question, con- 
cluding that Mueller’s “adoption of Adanson’s name (Bulinus) involves the 
acceptance of his shell as the type of the genus. Since, however, that is inde- 
terminate, this post-Linnean revival of the name is rendered nugatory. But for 
that, Bulinus Mueller would have precedence of Physa Draparnaud, 1801.” 

This conclusion seems to us incorrect in at least two statements. Adanson’s 
species has been determined. It was defined very well, and with specimens from 
the type locality, no zoologist should go astray in its identification. Its accep- 
tance does not displace Physa, but on the contrary, if it were to be thrown out 
as indeterminate, then Bulinus would take the place of Physa having Physa 
fontinalis as its type. The International Rules expressly exclude indeterminate 
species [or, rather, species inquirendae from the standpoint of the author of the 
generic name at the time of its publication—C. W. S.] from consideration in 
the selection of genotypes. 

Bulinus came into general use for the group under consideration and is to be 
found in the most widely used systematic works on general conchology, such 
as H. and A. Adams, Genera of Recent Mollusca; Tryon, Structural and Syste- 
matic Conchology; Fischer, Manuel de Conchyliologie, and others. 

The new name (or emended spelling) Bullinus originated with Oken, 1815, 
and in recent years has been taken up by several authors. Oken’s work was a 
mere compilation from Mueller; only the same species were mentioned. The 
revival of Oken’s name for the group was apparently due to the fact that Adan- 
son, being pre-Linnean, could not properly be quoted for the genus, and to 
ignorance of the prior work of Mueller. Bullinus Oken, according to the Rules 
of the International Commission, is an absolute synonym of Bulinus Mueller.’ 


Discussion.—The following facts (a, b) may be noted in regard 
to the derivation of the names: 
(a) Bulinus Mueller, 1781.—Adanson, 1757, p. 5, states: 


Le Bulin, Bulinus. Pl. 1. Je donne le nom de Bulin a un petit coquillage d’eau 
douce, qui vit communément sur la lentille de marais, et sur le lemma, dans les 
marais et les étangs de Podor. Cette dénomination m’a paru lui convenir par- 


* This conclusion is based upon the International Code of Zoological Nomen- 
clature, Art. 30d, and Opinions 16 and 18. 

* 1808, in P. and F. Sarasin, Materialien z. Naturg. Insel Celebes, Die Suss- 
wasser-Moll., p. 83. 

* 1905, Harriman Alaska Exped., Land and Fresh-Water Moll., p. 105. 

“10920, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., vol. 14, pp. 86-88. 

°The combination “ Bullinus Adanson” used by some authors is ruled out 
because it is erroneous—-Adanson never used “ Bullinus’’—and because a pre- 
Linnean author is not quotable as authority for generic or specific names. 


NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 9 


ceque l’animal pendant sa vie nage presque continuellement a fleur d’eau, et 
qu’aprés sa mort sa coquille flotte comme une petite bulle d’air transparente. Je 
n'ai observé qu’une espéce de ce genre, et elle nest figurée ni décrite nulle part. 

From this it seems clear that ‘‘ Le Bulin, Bulinus’’? means a little 
bubble, namely, the diminutive of the French “la bulle,” Latin, 
“ bulla.” 

As Adanson uses the correct orthography of the word “ la bulle ” 
on page 5, and as he consistently uses “ Le Bulin, Bulinus ” in at least 
three different places, and the French word “ bulin ”’ in a fourth place 
also, it seems obvious that he intended to coin a new French mas- 
‘culine noun “le bulin” as name for this mollusk and that he made 
his Latin diminutive Bulinus agree with the French in form rather 
than adopt a Latin feminine noun, bitllina based on the Latin feminine 
bulla. Accordingly, the word Bulinus is a relatively modern, 18th 
century, Latin name. It is to be noted that Adanson had rather 
advanced views on nomenclature and sought to use names which were 
not preoccupied. For instance, he says (p. XVIII): “ J’agirai de 
"meme a l’égard des noms adjectifs, tels que la tuilée, la chambrée, la 
tanée, etc. Je leur substituerai un terme neuf, qui n’aura eu jusqu’ici 
aucune signification.” 

Agassiz, 1842-46a, 13, interprets Bulinus as a corrupted derivative 
of Bulla. 

(b) Bulimus—According to Agassiz, 1842-46a, 13, Herrmann- 
sen, 1846, 147, and Leunis, 1883a, 887, Bulimus is derived from the 
Greek BovAmos, meaning a ravenous hunger. Compare the medical 
terms bulimia, bulimiasis, bulimy, and bulimic, namely, an excessive 
or morbid hunger which sometimes occurs in idiots and insane persons 
and is also a symptom of diabetes mellitus and of certain cerebral 
lesions. 

(c) The Secretary has examined the original documents with the 
following results: 

(d) Bulinus Adanson, 1757, 5-7, pl. 1, 1s a pre-Linnean monotypic 
generic name without nomenclatorial status under the Code but avail- 
able, of course, as bibliographic reference. 

(e) Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, 392, is cited without philologic deriva- 
tion and attributed to ‘“‘Adans.” The original species of Adanson’s 
‘Te Bulin ” is not cited nor is any definite reference given to ““Adans.” 
It is entirely possible that Bulimus, 1777, is a mistranscription or a 
misprint for Bulinus, 1757, and in fact, Kennard and Woodward, 
1924, Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., p. 127, have made out a very strong 
case for this interpretation in reproducing on p. 127 the figures of 
Adanson and calling attention to the printing of Bulinus Adanson 


IO SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


and Pedipes Adanson. It would take an almost microscopic eye to read 
correctly Bulinus instead of Bulimus; this error would however not 
be so natural in reading the original text of Adanson and it is safe- 
guarded against in the original illustration by use of the word 
“Le Bulin.” While it seems very reasonable to conclude that Bulimus, 
1777, iS a mistranscription or a misprint for Bulinus, 1757, the 
fact remains that Scopoli, in 1786, pl. 25, again used the name con- 
sistently as Bulimus and that in 1777 he did not quote Adanson’s 
species. The Secretary is inclined to believe that Bulimus, 1777, is 
either a misprint for or an emendation of Bulinus, 1757, but he is 
persuaded that the absence of Adanson’s species from the list admitted 
by Scopoli is to be given serious consideration, thus excluding 
B. senegalensis as type of Bulimus, 1777. 

Only four species come into consideration as type of Bulimus, 1777, 
namely, Helix putris, H. fragilis, H. stagnalis, H. tentaculata, all 
Linn., 1758a, p. 774. The citation of Bulimus haemastomus as type 
by Beck, 1837, (possibly based upon Bruguiére, 1792a, 294) and the 
citation of Helix oblonga as type by Herrmannsen, 1846, are both 
irrelevant, as neither species was included in the original publication 
of Buliunus. It is to be added that Apstein, 1915a, p. 182, cites 
oblongus Mueller, 1774, as type of Bulimus and that this species is 
used by at least some authors as identical with haemastomus Scopoli. 

Dall, 1892, clearly inclines to tentaculata as type, but as the Secre- 
tary reads his paper, Dall does not definitely designate this species as 
type under Article 30g of the Code, and he (Dall) thinks that no harm 
would be done if Bulimus is eventually suppressed. 

The documents presented to the Secretary do not show that the 
type of Bulimus, 1777, has been correctly and definitely designated. 

(f) Bulinus Mueller, 1781, Naturf., 5, is clearly based upon 
Bulinus Adanson, 1757, p. 5, pl. 1; it contains four species including 
(1) B. perla Muell., 1781, syn. Planorbis bulla Mueller, 1774, 167, 
and later considered synonymous with Physa fontinalis (Linn., 1758a, 
727), (2) B. turritus, (3) B. gelatinus, and (4) B. senegalensis. The 
fourth species senegalensis is the original “ Le Bulin”’ of Adanson. 
Mueller does not definitely designate a type and on basis of his publi- 
cation two interpretations might be possible, namely, on page 5, refer- 
ring to Bulinus perla he says ““Adanson 1757, 5, pl. 1, ‘ Le Bulin,’ Buli- 
nus erfand ihr einen neunen Geschlechtsnamen (Bulinus),’ and he 
includes ‘“‘ Le Bulin,” as one of the species. Accordingly, one might 
argue that Mueller’s type is B. perla syn. bulla on basis of the sentence 
just quoted; or one might argue that B. senegalensis is type by abso- 
lute tautonymy (cf. Opinion 16). The Secretary inclines distinctly 


NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 II 


toward the latter interpretation unless this be contraindicated by data 
not contained in the statement of the case. 

The statement of the case does not show that the designation of 
Physa fontinalis by Von Martens, 1898, as type of Bulinus is admis- 
sible, as Von Martens’ premises are not submitted. Unless Von 
Martens recognized perla as objective synonym of fontinalis, this type 
designation is debatable. 

(¢) In nomenclatorial discussion of Bulimus, the point appears 
not to have been duly considered that Bruguiére, 1792a [1789], 
pp. 286-367, proposed as a new molluscan genus “ Bulime——Bulimus ; 
Nob.,” with 113 species, and that as he uses Bulimus and bulime, in 
numerous places, the question of a typographical error appears to be 
excluded. On page 367, he cites “ Bulin, (voyez) al’article, Bulime des 
fontaines,” namely (p. 306) “ Bulimus fontinalis; Nob.,’’ where he 
quotes “ Bulla fontinalis Linn.,” “ Planorbis bulla Mueller,” ‘“ Die 
Wasser-blase; die Perlen-blase . . . ., La bulle aquatique”’ in sy- 
nonymy ; he also says (p. 307) “ L’espece que M. Adansson a observée 
dans les eaux marécageuses du Sénégal, & qu’il a nommeée le bulin, 
est différente du Bulime des fontaines.... . [p. 308] Je crois donc 
que ce sont trois especes [cf. Bulin of Adanson; * Bulime de la 
Virginie’ of Lister and Petiver] bien distinctes qu’il faut encore 
examiner avec soin & comparer, les unes avec les autres, avant de les 
distinguer par des phrases caractéristiques ; celle de M. Adansson ne 
me paroit bien douteuse, mais je ne pense pas de meme de celle 
de Lister, a 

Accordingly, “le bulin”’ of Adanson is sub judice from the stand- 
point of Bruguiere in establishing his genus bulimus, and he seems 
definitely to exclude it from Bulimus fontinalis, but he does not 
appear to classify it definitely as a distinct species of Bulimus; how- 
ever, he states (p. 307) that it “ 
des fontaines.”’ 

Thus, under Art. 30c, Adanson’s species appears to be eliminated 
from consideration as type of Buliumus Brug., 1792. 

Bruguiére definitely states (p. 294) “le nom de Bulime que j’ai 
adopté pour ce genre, avoit déja été employé par M. Scopoli pour le 
Bulime oblong; je Vai conservé, parcequ’il indique son analogie avec 
celui de la bulle, a cause de l’ouverture entiére, sans échancrure, qui 
est commune a tous les deux.” This comes very close to being a 
designation of oblongus (cf. haemastomus Scopoli) as type species. 

Accordingly, if the view advanced by Kennard and Woodward 
(1924, 126) be adopted (that “ Bulimus [Scopoli, 1777] was an 
obvious mistranscription for Bulinus [1757 ; 1781] ; it must be treated 


a tant d’analogie avec le Bulime 


12 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


as such, and discarded in future literature”), the generic name 
Bulimus Bruguiére, 1792, comes up for consideration, since the ques- 
tion of a typographical error in Bruguiére is obviously excluded. 

The Secretary frankly admits that there are two sides to this case 
and that a decision in either direction might not be entirely free from 
the interpretation that it is in the light of settling a controversy rather 
than in the light of an argument based on unambiguous premises. 
Close decisions, more or less arbitrary and not entirely free from 
utilitarian influence, are sometimes necessary and the following 
recommendations are not entirely free from this construction. 

On basis of the foregoing discussion the Secretary recommends 
that the Commission answer Doctor Pilsbry’s questions as follows: 

1. Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, may or may not be a typographical error 
for or an emendation of Bulinus Adanson, 1757; the question is not 
entirely free from doubt. If it be interpreted as a typographical 
error the problem at issue is not solved, for Bulimus Bruguiére, 1792, 
is obviously not a typographical error. 

2. The data submitted do not show that the type of Bulimus, 1777, 
has ever been properly and definitely designated. 

3. Bulimus haemastomus seu B. oblongus is not available as type 
of Bulimus, 1777, so far as the premises show, but is available as type 
of Bulimus, 1792, and this designation is in harmony with Bruguieére, 
1792a, Pp. 294. 

4. Under Opinion 16, Bulinus Mueller, 1781, has for its type 
B. senegalensis, and the Commission so rules. 

5. As either of two rulings is possible in respect to Bulimus, 1777, 
the Commission here rules that this is not an obvious mistranscription 
or an obvious typographical error. This ruling is based upon the 
following premises : 

a.—In case of difference of opinion, it seems best to give the 
benefit of doubt to the view which will be more in harmony with 
current nomenclature, and this interpretation is according to the 
premises submitted. 

b.—The preponderance of evidence seems to be in favor of this 
view. 

c.—The original Bulinus, le bulin, 1757, is not cited with Bulimus, 
1781, hence this is not available as the type of the latter. 

d—If Bulimus, 1777, be interpreted as a typographical error, 
Bulimus, 1792, remains to be considered, and no reason has been 
advanced in the premises which shows the advisability of sacrificing 
the advantage of I5 years in priority. 





NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 13 


e.—Under the premises submitted, not one of the species (putris, 
fragilis, stagnalis, tentaculata) cited under Bulimus, 1777, is available 
as type for Bulinus, 1781, and not one of the species (perla, turritus, 
gelatinus, senegalensis) cited under Bulinus in 1781 is available as 
type for Bulimus, 1777. Accordingly, it appears (under Art. 30e) 
that an objective identity of these two generic names is excluded. 

In connection with the foregoing recommendations the Secretary 
states very frankly that there are phases of this case of nomenclature 
which are open to debate. In the recommendations that have been 
made and where he had the option of adopting either of two interpre- 
tations he has been influenced by the principle of endeavoring not 
to overturn existing nomenclature any more than is absolutely neces- 
sary. The generic name Le Bulin, Bulinus Mueller, 1781, as typified 
by B. senegalensis, belongs to the Order PULMONATA, subo. 
BASOMMATOPHORA. 

Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, if Helix tentaculata be accepted as type, 
would belong to the Order PROSOBRANCHIATA. 

Bulimus of Scopoli, 1786, if typified by B. haemastomus (syn. of 
oblonga Mueller), would belong to Order PULMONATA, subo. 
Oo LOMMATOPAORSA. 

This species belongs to a modern family distinct from any family 
represented in the 1777 list of four species. It was the group repre- 
sented by Scopoli’s 1786 usage which Bruguiére had mainly in mind, 
and which came into general use as Bulimus and continued under 
that name until about thirty years ago. From Scopoli’s standpoint, 
his Bulimi of 1777 and 1786 were congeneric—he was merely forming 
a new genus for the elongated species of Linnean Helix—leaving the 
Linnean term for the depressed and discoidal forms. Dall’s sug- 
gestion to restrict Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, to Helix tentaculata was to 
avoid displacing either of the old and universally. used names Succinea 
or Lymnaea; the H. tentaculata group (Bithynia) being later and 
comprising relatively few species. 

To interpret Bulimus as a misprint or as an error of transcription, 
as might easily be done, would call for the use of Bulinus in its place, 
thus bringing about a very regrettable instance of transfer of name 
in a genus which is reported to contain more than 1,200 species. 
When two theoretical interpretations are possible either of which 
seems justified, a practical point of this kind is surely to be given 
due consideration. 

The case has caused such distinct differences of opinion among 
conchologists, that the Secretary submitted the foregoing data to 
Dr. Paul Bartsch, Dr. W. H. Dall, and Dr. H. A. Pilsbry (all of the 


I4 , SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


United States), and to Dr. B. B. Woodward of London, England, 
and to Commissioner Frederick Chapman of Melbourne, Australia, 
with request for comments. 


The consultants have replied as follows: 


Letter from Dr. Paul Bartsch of the United States National 
Museum: 


‘ 


Dr, Dall and I have both gone over your “ pink sheets,” which are herewith 
returned, and we both feel you have splendidly covered the field and there is 
nothing else to say. 


Letters from Dr. H. A. Pilsbry of the Academy of Natural Sciences, 
Philadelphia : 


I have read your opinion on Bulimus and Bulinus with great satisfaction. 
It appears to me to cover the ground in a wholly logical manner. I am of course 
the more pleased because the views you adopt disturb our current nomenclature 
far less than any other course which has been proposed. 

Since Bulinus has entered medical literature (as a host of Schistosoma in 
Africa, etc.) it is doubly desirable to retain the name as wholly unconnected 
with the prior Bulimus, which has been used only in totally different senses. In 
my report on Congo mollusks (now, I hear, about to be printed) the type, 
Bulinus senegalensis, is to be figured from the original marsh in Senegal. 
Kennard and Woodward’s failure to identify this species was doubtless due to 
lack of material from that particular place. 


Thank you for letting me see the very full discussion of the case Bulimus 
versus Bulinus. As you say, the discussion by Bruguiére is very important in 
this connection, though I had not recognized its bearing before. I think that the 
Opinion will prove generally acceptable to workers in Mollusca, and it seems 
to me by far the most logical solution of the questions at issue. 


Letter from Dr. B. B. Woodward, malacologist : 


The high compliment you pay of asking my opinion of your “ Opinion” ere it 
goes before the Commissioners although you know how divergent our views are 
on the enforcement of the “Rules” is fully appreciated by me. 

I take it that you invite remarks on the whole draft and not merely on the 
conclusions expressed in the initial “Summary.” It appears to me then that 
your draft recommendation has been drawn up after the manner of judicial deci- 
sions solely on the somewhat involved statement laid before you by the appellant 
without regard to whether that statement is complete or not. Had you seen 
your way to make yourself really familiar with the complete arguments pub- 
lished by Kennard and Woodward in the Proc. Malac. Soc. Lond., vol. 14, 1920, 
pp. 86-88, and vol. 16, 1924, pp. 125-128, instead of relying on the fragmentary 
quotations of the appellant, you would have found all the points fully met, and 
would, I venture to think, in many respects have modified your recommendation 
and summary, which, if I may say so, rather suggests to the Commissioners how 
they should vote instead of giving them the information on which to base their 
own conclusions as they should be left to do. It is a pity the rival statements 
could not be given in parallel columns. 


NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 15 


In the first place, as admitted in the “ Discussion,’ Adanson was a pre- 
Linnean writer and therefore by the “ Rules” his work and names cannot be 
entertained. The amazing statement on the top of fol. 4 [p. 8] of your draft, 
that his Bulinus “has been determined” and that “it was defined very well, 
and with specimens from the type locality no zoologist should go astray in its 
identification” is far removed from fact. No man from Adanson’s day to this 
has seen the mollusc, and no specimens from the type locality, which is unknown, 
exist! It remains an indeterminate species and the bestowal of a trivial name on 
it does not alter that. A few details given of it show that both anatomically and 
conchologically it had nothing in common with forms, like /sidora, that have 
been placed with it by writers who should have known better. It was by follow- 
ing Fischer that the medicos were misled into using a wrong name, which does 
not apply to their molluscs and it is not for the systematic zoologists to pander 
to the errors of the misinformed. 

In the next place there is no such thing as “ Bulimus Scopoli, 1777” or that 
eccentric writer would not have attached Adanson’s name as author. It should 
be quoted as “ Bulimus Adans., of Scopoli.’ The error of transcription (nol 
a typographical error) is only too obvious (see Kennard and Woodward, 1924, 
p. 126). Of course if Scopoli had looked twice or read the text as he manifestly 
did not do, he would have seen his error and rectified it. The argument that 
Scopoli did not cite Adanson’s species is beside the mark for he evidently, as the 
context shows, thought he was doing so but misspelt the name. The suggested 
definite statement in the opening summary of the draft “ Opinion” that ‘“ The 
Commission rules that Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, is not an obvious typographic 
error” is hardly consonant with the admissions and more guarded statements on 
fol. 5, sect. e [p. 9]. If you must suggest the verdict, why not put “do not 
consider,” instead of “rules”? Scopoli’s record of 1777 cannot be considered 
apart from his 1786 elaboration and extension of the name to the “nec non 
paucae terrestres cl. Miillerii,’ which puts the crown on his absurd group (see 
Kennard & Woodward, 1924, p. 128). The restoration of “ Bulimus Adans.” of 
Scopoli, 1777, would only make confusion worse confounded. 

Mueller’s adoption of Adanson’s Bulinus, including his bestowal of a trivial 
name, which, of course, becomes the type of the genus, fails for the reasons 
carefully pointed out by Kennard and Woodward (1920, p. 87). 

As to Bulimus of Bruguiére, 1792, whatever may be said or thought of the 
“ Bulimus Adans.” of Scopoli, there is the name printed in 1777 and renewed in 
1786; hence by the “ Rules” it cannot be used again so that the argument ad- 
vanced at the bottom of fol. 6 [p. 11] that the suppression of Bulimus, 1777, 
would resuscitate that of 1792 appears to me quite fallacious. Bruguiére’s 
Bulimus, therefore, goes out as a homonym as admitted in the initial “ Sum- 
mary” of the draft “Opinion” but not made as clear as it might be in the 
“ Discussion.” 


Stiles to Woodward: 


Referring to your letter on Bulimus, I had already examined your publica- 
tions of 1920 and 1924, but will order them again to see whether I have over- 
looked any point. I shall also take pleasure in forwarding a copy of your letter 
to the Commission when a draft of the Opinion is forwarded, 

You, of course, understand that the statement of case in any Opinion is the 
statement given by the appellant and that the discussion is the part written by 
the Commissioner who formulates the Opinion. It is customary to refer each 

2 


10 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


case to a Commissioner who makes a special study of the data and makes his 
recommendations to the Commission. As in any court of law the case has to be 
decided upon the evidence available. Appellants can hardly expect that the 
Commissioners will work up the literature for them though we have done this 
in several cases. 

I am wondering whether confusion has not arisen in regard to your interpre- 
tation of Bulimus, 1792. If it be maintained that Bulimus, 1777, is a typographic 
error would you still maintain that it has status in nomenclature to the effect 
that it invalidates Bulimus, 1792, or would you maintain that as a typographic 
error it has no status in nomenclature? In the latter premise it could not invali- 
date Bulimus, 17092. 

I will go over the data very carefully again in your publications of 1920 and 
1924. 


Woodward to Stiles: 


You ask for an explicit statement as to my opinion on the status of Bruguiére’s 
Bulimus, 1792, in the event that Bulimus, 1777, should be decided to be a typo- 
graphical error. I thought I had made it quite clear in my last letter that I 
regarded Scopoli’s “ Bulimus Adans.” as an error of transcription and not as a 
typographical error, and I further wrote: “As to Bulimus of Bruguiére, 1792, 
whatever may be said or thought of the “ Bulimus Adans.” of Scopoli, there is 
the name printed in 1777 and renewed in 1786; hence by the Rules it cannot be 
lised agains oe. Bruguiére’s Bulimus, therefore goes out as a homonym.” 
Of course had the “ Bulimus Adans.” of Scopoli been a nom. nud. that would 
have been a different matter: it was not. 

By the way, as a matter of fact, which I had forgotten, Bruguiére’s Bulimus 
was published in the first part of the Ency. méthod., Vers, i, which appeared 
in 1789 (see Sherborn & Woodward: Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. Ser. 7, vol. 17, 
p. 579) and not in 1792. 

Your statement as to the method of procedure of the Commission is illumi- 
nating. It seems that unless the appellant, who is naturally biased, happens to 
have given a complete statement of facts it is nobody’s business to see that a 
full case is placed before the Commission, who may, therefore, be called upon 
solemnly to adjudicate on imperfect evidence. 


Letter from Commissioner Frederick Chapman, A. L. S.: 


My conclusions on the evidence and discussion regarding the validity or 
otherwise of Bulinus Adanson are as follows: 

1.—Bulinus Adanson is pre-Linnean and therefore has no status. 

2—Bulimus Scopoli may or may not be an error of transcription by that 
author, for Adanson’s name, but is not to be considered since Adanson is pre- 
Linnean. But Bulimus Scopoli would also go by the board had he not further 
defined it in 1786. Bulimus Scopoli therefore stands. 

3.—Bulimus of Bruguiére, 1792, goes out as a homonym. 

4.—Bulinus having been ruled out by No. 1, cannot be used again for the pul- 
monate forms related to Jsidora, but Oken’s name, Bullinus, 1815 (though ap- 
parently suggested by Adanson’s name), is sufficiently different to be retained, 
and in this sense has been used by Hedley (Rec. Austr. Mus. 1917, vol. 12, 
no. 1) for the sinistral forms like Physa so common in the Australian region, 
and which I have shown to belong to the Planorbidae. 


NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 7 


Bartsch writes: 


Your letter and the enclosures from B. B. Woodward are at hand. 

Dr, Dall and I have both been interested in them. We are in accord with you. 

The foregoing Opinion with the above comments was submitted to 
the Commission for informal vote and discussion. In accordance with 
the expressed opinion of the Commission, the Secretary has the honor 
to recommend that the Commission adopt as its Opinion the following: 

SumMMARY.—The Commission does not interpret Bulimus Scopoh, 
1777, as an obvious typographical error; the premises do not show 
that the genotype (which must be selected from the four originally 
included species) has been definitely and properly designated. 
Bulinus Mueller, 1781, has for its type Bulinus senegalensis, and is 
not invalidated by Bulimus, 1777. Bulimus Bruguiére, 1792, type 
haemastomus seu oblonga is a dead homonym of Bulimus, 1777. 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by eleven (11) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Chapman (with reservation), Dabbene, Handlirsch, Horvath, Ishi- 
kawa, Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Silvestri, Stiles, Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by one (1) Commissioner: Bather. 

Not voting six (6) Commissioners: Bolivar, Hartert, MKolbe, 
Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger, Stone. 

Commissioner Chapman attaches the following reservation to his 
vote: 

As regards the re-consideration of vote on Circular Letter No. 130, Bulimus 
vs. Bulinus, I would concur with the Opinion that both Bulimus Scopoli, 1777, 
and Bulinus Mueller, 1781, be retained, on the proviso that Bulimus Oken, 
1815, be regarded as the type genus for our Australian freshwater Physa-like 
molluscs (see Hedley, 1917, Rec. Austr. Mus., vol. 12, no. I, p. 3). The shell 


from Senegal cannot be compared with the Australian, since, as Hedley remarks, 
the type has not been again recognized. 


18 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


OPINION 117 
Type oF Lithostrotion 


SUMMARY.—Under Suspension of the Rules Lithostrotion is hereby stand- 
ardized, with Lithostrotion striatum as type species, and is placed in the 
Official List of Generic Names. 


PRESENTATION OF CASE.—By Dr. W. D. Lang and Dr. S. Smith: 


# 
We wish the species Lithostrotion striatum to be standardized as the genolec- 
totype of Lithostrotion. The history is as follows: 
Lithostrotion Fleming, 1828, History of British Animals, p. 508. 


GENOSYNTYPES : 
L. striatum, 1828, p. 508. 
Erasmolithus Madreporites floriformis; Martin, 1809, Petreficata Der- 
biensia, pl. 43, figs. 3 and 4; pl. 44, fig. 5. 
L. obliquim,; Fleming, 1828, p. 508. 
L. marginatum; Fleming, 1828, p. 508. 


In 1845, Lonsdale (in Murchison, Geology of Russia, vol. 1, p. 602) mentions 
four species of Lithostrotion, namely L. emarciatum, L. mammillare, L. astroides, 
and L. floriforme. Without definitely designating L. floriforme (the only geno- 
syntype involved) as lectotype, he yet discusses and determines the characters 
of Lithostrotion upon L. floriforme, clearly implying that he considered L. 
floriforme as lectotype. But if the author’s intention is considered, it might be 
argued that Fleming intended L. striatum as genotype of Lithostrotion, since 
he placed it first, and gave it the trivial name striatum which, with the name 
Lithostrotion, is an echo of Lhwyd’s description “ Lithostrotion sive Basaltes 
minus striatum et stellatum,” to which Fleming refers in his description of 
L. striatum. 

Since, however, a genolectotype must be deliberately designated (“the mean- 
ing of the expression ‘select the type’ must be rigidly construed”), we are 
bound to leave both Fleming and Lonsdale with their implied intentions, and 
pass on to Edwards and Haime, who, in 1851 (Mon. British Fossil Corals, 
p. 72) deliberately designated L. floriforme Fleming, as genotype of Lithostro- 
tion; and the fact that thereafter both they, and nearly all other authors, aban- 
doned this ruling, interpreting Lithostrotion as if the genolectotype were L. 
striatum, and including L. floriforme in McCoy’s genus Lonsdaleia, does not 
invalidate Edwards and Haime’s prior pronouncement. L. floriforme, then, still 
stands as the genolectotype of Lithostrotion. 

Now the generic type of the coral which, since 1851, has been almost univer- 
sally, though wrongly, ascribed to Lithostrotion, is very abundant in the Car- 
boniferous Limestone and includes several separable forms. The same is true 
of the genus Lonsdaleia of which the genolectotype is L. duplicata (Martin) 
and which includes the species of L. floriformis (Martin), 7. ¢., the Lithostrotion 
floriforme of Fleming and the true genolectotype of Lithostrotion. It is easily 
seen, therefore, that much of Carboniferous Coral nomenclature is thrown into 
confusion by giving the correct interpretation to Lithostrotion; and that time, 
labor, and misunderstanding would be saved, if the species.L. striatum, which 
the author of Lithostrotion clearly intended as genotype, should be standardized 
as genolectotype of Lithostrotion. 





NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 1g 


Discussion.—By Commissioner Bather : 

The name Lithostrotion in the sense proposed by the writers is so commonly 
used in textbooks as well as in scientific papers that stability of nomenclature 
is more likely to be attained by suspending the rules in this instance than by 
enforcing them, I therefore commend the proposal that L. striatum be fixed as 
genotype of Lithostrotion to the favorable consideration of the International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 

The papers in this case have been submitted to Dr. T. Wayland 
Vaughan, and his reply is appended herewith for the information of 
the Commission and as a part of the Opinion: 

I have received your letter of January 5 and the papers relative to recognition 
of Lithostrotion striatum as the genolectotype of Lithostrotion. I am not able 
to check all of the references given by Mr. Lang but I can check his reference to 
Edwards and Haime’s British Fossil Corals. I am convinced that the presen- 
tation of Messrs. Lang and Stanley Smith is in all respects correct. Unless 
there is some urgent reason not known to me I incline to agree with the recom- 
mendation of Messrs. Lang, Smith, and Bather. I think that you know the 
standing of these three men. It is very high and Doctor Bather is one of the 
most distinguished paleontologists living. If their recommendation is not adopted 
the name Lithostrotion will have to replace Lonsdaleia McCoy, 1849, which 
would be unfortunate. I don’t like to express a positive opinion until I am 
entirely sure that I have considered all of the different angles, but I am not 
inclined to make any opposition to the recommendation you have referred to me. 

Notice that this case is under consideration for Suspension has 
been published as follows : 

Monitore Zoologico Italiano, Anno 38, 1927, No. 9. 
Nature, vol. 119, June 4, 1927. 

Zoologischer Anzeiger, Band 71, Heft 11-12, 28 Mai, 1927. 
Science (Query). 

The Secretary moves that in accordance with Commissioner 
Bather’s Opinion the Commission adopt the following: 

SumMMARY.—Under Suspension of the Rules Lithostrotion is 
hereby standardized, with Lithostrotion striatum as type species, and 
is placed in the Official List of Generic Names. 

Opinion concurred in by eleven (11) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Chapman, Handlirsch, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan’ (DD. S.), 
Jordan(K.), Stiles, Stone, Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, six (6) Commissioners: Dabbene, Hartert, Kolbe, 
Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger. 

Motion concurred in by ten (10) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, 
Chapman, Dabbene, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (D.S.), Jordan (K.), 
Stiles, Stone. 

Motion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, six (6) Commissioners: Handlirsch, Hartert, Kolbe, 
Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger, Warren. 


20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL 75 


OPINION 118 


Scalpellum gabbi Wavr, 1926, A NOMEN NUDUM 
SUMMARY.—The name Scalpellum gabbi Wade, 1926, is a nomen nudum as 
of 1926, since it is definitely made dependent by its author on hypothetical 
specimens. See Opinion 2. 


PRESENTATION OF CASE.—By Mr. T. H. Withers, of the British 
Museum: 


In United States Geological Survey, Professional Paper 137 (Bruce Wade: 
The Fauna of the Ripley Formation on Coon Creek, Tennessee), Washington, 
1926, p. 191, an author, whose identity is uncertain, describes and figures two 
cirripede plates under the heading “ Scalpellum sp.” 

Following the description is the following : 

“These two plates were not found together, and it is impossible to say if they 
belong to the same species. Should additional specimens be obtained sufficient 
for establishing a new species, the species might very properly be called Scalpel- 
lum gabbi Wade, n. sp..... <i 

A ruling on the nomenclatorial status of the name Scalpellum gabbi is desired. 


Discussion By COMMISSIONER BATHER.—This hypothetical or con- 
ditional proposal of new names is an action that has frequently 
received severe and well-merited censure. If it were possible to deny 
validity to the present name a more effective check might be placed 
on the practice. There do actually seem to be reasons for such a 
decision. 

1. The identity of the author is uncertain. Though the author of 
the paper as a whole is Bruce Wade, the section on Arthropoda is 
ascribed by the table of contents and by its own heading (p. 184) to 
M. J. Rathbun. It is quite possible for Miss Rathbun to have quoted 
a MS. name from a label attached by the collector, Wade, in which 
case she might have written “ Scalpellum gabbi Wade.” On the other 
hand, Scalpellum is not included by Miss Rathbun in the list of forms 
that she discusses ; her contribution is headed ‘‘ Class Crustacea,”’ and 
the description of Scalpellum, is headed “ Class Eucrustacea,” which 
may indicate a difference ; the name ‘* Wade ” may signify the author 
of the section. In this state of uncertainty one might regard the 
author as anonymous, but, though this presumably would put the 
name out of court, I find no rule or opinion dealing with anonymity. 

2. The two plates, which are different parts of the test, are de- 
scribed separately. Neither is taken as holotype; on the contrary, the 
writer declines to say that both belong to the same species, and there- 


NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 21 


fore refrains from naming either. The next sentence implies that no 
species can be established until further material is collected, whence 
it follows that the holotype would be taken from that further material. 
Therefore the name Scalpellum gabbi is hypothetically attached to a 
specimen not yet known, and, for all one can tell, non-existent. 
‘““Names based on hypothetical forms have no status in nomen- 
clature ” (Opinion 2). 

3. Although the separate plates are described and figured, the 
writer has attempted no diagnosis of a species, it being clear from 
his own words that he could not and would not formulate any specific 
concept. He does not even compare his specimens with any others. 

This leaves the name S. gabbi without definition or description ; 
and if we seek for an “ indication” in the sense of Article 25a, we 
find, as already shown, that any possible type-specimen is unknown. 
The name is therefore a nomen nudum. 

I conclude, therefore, that as a nomen nudum without status the 
name Scalpellum gabbi does not come into consideration. It foliows 
that any author can use the name for any new species of Scalpelluin 
(though such action would be most ill-advised), also that any author 
can give the name S. gabbi to either of the specimens figured in 
Prof. Paper, 137, and the author so doing will then rank as the 


‘ 


author of the name. 

SummMaAry.—lIn general terms: A specific name conditional on 
specimens unknown to its author has no status in nomenclature. 

Discussion By SECRETARY.—The foregoing papers were referred 
to the United States Geological Survey and to Miss Mary J. Rathbun 
for comment with the following result: 

Letter from George O. Smith, Director: 


The case of nomenclature which involves the standing of the name Scalpellum 
gabbi Wade has been considered by the paleontologists of the Geological Sur- 
vey, and they have prepared the two enclosed memoranda which show that they 
are in essential agreement that Scalpellum gabbi is a nomen nudum without 
standing. On the incidental question of authorship which has been raised they 
are agreed that Wade is the author of the name. 


Memorandum from Miss Mary J. Rathbun: 


I did not write the description of the Scalpellum and never saw it until it was 
published. 

On page 184, the Order Decapoda only is ascribed to me. Apparently Mr. 
Wade expected that whatever was not definitely assigned to a different author 
would be attributed to himself. The “Contents” on p. II (which perhaps he 
did not make up) does not bear that out. 


to 
bdo 


SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Memorandum from Paleontologists of the Geological Survey : 


The suggestion made by Commissioner Bather that this name might be re- 
garded as anonymous is unwarranted, for it is published as “ Scalpellwm gabbi 
Wade, n. sp.,” and the published record must be accepted. Miss Rathbun’s de- 
nial of authorship is confirmatory evidence on this point. 

On the other hand, Commissioner Bather’s opinion that the name can be 
disposed of as a nomen nudum seems to be justified. Most conditional new 
names could not be so summarily dealt with, but the author states that “should 
additional specimens be obtained sufficient for establishing a new species, the 
species might very properly be called Scalpellum gabbi Wade, n. sp.” (italics 
ours). 


[Signed:] “In full agreement,” George H. Girty, W. P. Woodring, P. V. 

Roundy, W. C. Mansfield, John B. Reeside, Jr. 

“T concur in the above statement,” T. W. Stanton. 

“Tn my opinion the name ‘ Scalpellum gabbi’ is a nomen nudum 
and therefore for the present without standing.” E. O. Ulrich. 

“The reasoning in this matter seems to be conclusive.” Charles 
Butts. 

“The name should be considered a ‘nomen nudum’ and without 
other standing.” Edwin Rich. 


Memorandum from L. W. Stephanson and C. Wythe Cooke: 


The name Scalpellum gabbi, as it now stands has, in our opinion, no validity, 
and can only be given validity by a revisor. 

A revisor might select one of the specimens as holotype, in which case the 
name would apply to that specimen only, unless the revisor, or some subsequent 
author, could show that it exhibits a specific character or characters which 
would permit of its identification with other specimens. 

The revisor probably would, through courtesy, credit the name to Wade, but 
he would be justified in claiming the credit for himself, or he would even be 
justified in ignoring Wade’s name and applying an entirely new name to the 
species. 


The Secretary has verified the original publication and concurs in 
the statement of premises and in the conclusion, and recommends 
that the Commission adopt the following: 

SumMARY.—The name Scalpellum gabbi Wade, 1926, is a nomen 
nudum as of 1926, since it is definitely made dependent by its author 
on hypothetical specimens. See Opinion 2. 

Opinion prepared by Bather and Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Hartert, Horvath, Ishikawa, 
Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Stiles, Stone, Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting: Kolbe, Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, Silvestri, Stej- 
neger. 


NO. 7 OPINIONS I15 TO 123 23 


OPINION 119 


Six MOoLLUSCAN GENERIC NAMES PLACED IN THE 
OrrFiciAt. List oF GENERIC NAMES 


SUMMARY .—The following six generic names of MOLLUSCA are hereby 
placed in the Official List of Generic Names, with types as stated: Cerion 
(uva), Oleacina (voluta), Neritina (pulligera), Clausilia (rugosa), Vitrina 
(pellucida), Tornatellina (clausa). 


PRESENTATION OF CASE——Drs. H. A. Pilsbry and H. Burrington 
Baker have made application to the Commission to accept twelve 
generic names as “nomina conservanda”’ [should read “in the 
Official List of Generic Names ’’] : 


. Ampullaria Lamarck, with Helix ampullacea Linné as type; 
. Auricula Lamarck, with Voluta auris-midae Linné as type; 

. Cerion Réding, with Turbo uva Linné as type; 

. Oleacina Roding, with Bulla voluta Gmelin as type; 

. Bithynia Leach, with Helix tentaculata Linné as type; 

. Cyclostoma Draparnaud, with Nerita elegans Miiller as type; 
. Neritina Lamarck, with Nerita pulligera Linné as type; 

. Clausilia Draparnaud, with C. rugosa Draparnaud as type; 
9. Vitrina Draparnaud, with Helix pellucida Muller as type; 
10. Artemon Beck, with Solarium candidum Spix as type; 

11. Cochlicopa Férussac, with Heltx lubrica Muller as type; 
12. Tornatellina Pfeiffer, with 7. clausa Pfeiffer as type. 


CON AM BR W HD 


Discussion.—The twelve names in question were ‘submitted to 
thirteen specialists as consultants who are familiar with the cases and 
with whose work these names are more or less intimately involved. 

Pronounced differences of opinion as to the best course to pursue 
exist in regard to six of these names. 

In regard to the other six names, one specialist supported “‘ sus- 
pension,” one opposed “ suspension ” (without details), one saw no 
special cause for “ suspension,” while five who opposed suspension 
maintained that the six names in question are valid under the Rules 
and therefore do not call for Suspension. 

The situation is thus presented that six of the names for which 
suspension is asked, in order to stabilize the nomenclature, can (on 
basis of expert testimony of five specialists) be adopted in the Official 
List without valid formal objection by any of the thirteen consultants 
in question. The data on these six names follow: 

3. Cerion Bolten, 1798, tsd. (1894) Turba uva Linn., 1758. Pilsbry and Baker 
report: 


“Cerion Roding (Mus. Bolten., II, p. 90), type designated by Dall (1804, 
Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 24, p. 121), Turbo uva L. 


3 


24 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 72 


Pupa Lamarck (1801, Syst. Anim. s. vert., p. 88), monotype Turbo uva L. 
(Not Pupa Roding.) 

Pupa Draparnaud (1801, Tabl. Molk France, pp. 32, 56), for European 
Pupillidae.” 

Discussion: Cerion is universally employed for the typical genus 
of the Cerionidae (Gastropoda Pulmonata); the only other name 
(Strophia) that has been used is preoccupied. According to Opin- 
ion 96, Cerion is the correct name for the genus. Its replacement by 
Pupa would be peculiarly unfortunate, as that name has usually been 
employed in the sense of Draparnaud (=Pupfilla Leach), although 
historically both the Pupillidae and the Cerionidae (members of 
different suborders) were included in the one genus. Except for 
Pupa Lam., Cerion would be the prior name for the genus, even if 
dated from what many consider its first valid use, that by Morch 
(1852). 

According to special reports by F. A. Bather, B. B. Woodward 
(both of London), and F. Haas, Rud. Richter, and W. Wenz (all 
three of the Senckenberg Museum, of Frankfurt a. M.), this case 
stands under the Rules. H. A. Pilsbry and H. B. Baker (of Phila- 
delphia), B. Rensch (Berlin), and F. L. Chapman (Melbourne), 
express themselves in favor of Cerion. Wolfgang Adensamer 
(Vienna) concurs. Apparently Paul Bartsch (Washington, D. C.) 
and L. Germain, both support Cerion, the former on basis of the 
Rules, the latter even if suspension is necessary. T. W. Stanton, 
speaking as a paleontologist, ‘““ would like to have the conchologists 
agree among themselves.” 


4. Oleacina Bolten, 1798, type Bulla voluta Gmelin, 1790. Pilsbry and Baker 
report: 
“ Oleacina Roding (Mus. Bolten., II, p. 110), monotype O. volutata Rodding, 
with Bulla voluta Gmelin in synonymy. 
Glandina Schumacher (1817, Ess. Noy. Syst. Hab. Vers. Test., pp. 61, 202), 
monotype G, olivacea Schumacher (= Bulla voluta Gmelin).” 


Discussion: According to Opinion 96, Oleacina is the correct 
name for the typical genus of the Oleacinidae (Gastropoda Pul- 
monata). As Schumacher was almost as unpopular as Bolten among 
the early conchologists, Oleacina has been in use almost as long as 
Glandina, and is the one employed by recent writers. It seems best to 
fixed 

The consultants report as in Case 3. Cerion. 


7. Neritina Lamarck, 1816, type N. pulligera Linn., 1766. Pilsbry and Baker 
report: ; 
“* Neritine’ Férussac (1807) and Lamarck (1809). 
Theodoxis, Theodoxus Montfort (1810, Conch. System. II, pp. 350, 351), 
type by original designation, 7. lutetianus Montfort = Nerita fluviatilis 
Linné (1758). 





eT ge ak ot a 


seme 


NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 25 


Clithon Montfort (1810, pp. 326, 327), type by original designation Clithon 
corona (L.)= Nerita corona L. (1758). 

Neritina ‘Lamarck’ Rafinesque (1815, Analyse de la Nature, p. 144), nude 
name. 

Neritina Lamarck (1816, Encycl. Méth. Vers. IT, pl. 455), type designated by 
Children (1822-1823, Gen, Lam., p. 111), Neritina pulligera (L.).” 


Discussion: Neritina Lamarck (with date quoted as 1809) has 
been and still is usually employed for a widespread group of fresh 
and brackish water snails of the family Neritidae (Gastropoda 
Rhipidoglossa). Probably, the European species, Theodoxus fluvi- 
atilis (L.) is not congeneric with the East Indian N. pulligera, but the 
position of the East Indian N. corona (Clithon) is more dubious. 
Theodoxus has come into quite common use, in recent years, for at 
least the European species, although some writers still use Nerttina 
in practically the Lamarckian sense. Clithon has almost never been 
used in a generic sense, although it is possible that the Conchyliologie 
Systematique came out in parts, and Clithon is on an earlier page than 
Theodoxus. The fixation of Neritina as a nomen conservandum would 
permit the ‘“lumpers” to retain the customary name for the entire 
group, while the “splitters” could still use Theodorus for the 
European genus. 

Woodward reports: 


Neritina. Regrettable as was the necessary substitution, under the Rules, of 
Theodoxus for the once familiar Neritina there is no valid reason beyond senti- 
ment for reversion to the Lamarckian name. Theodoxus is now so widely used 
that its abandonment would only create more confusion. In the suggested course, 
which has its good points, of dividing the genus and using both Theodoxus and 
Neritina the former by its priority would entail the family name _ being 
Theodoxidae. 


Bather reports: 


7. Neritina should stand with genotype N. pulligera it generically distinct 
from Theodoxus with genotype N. fluviatilis. If that be possible I see no objec- 
tion to retaining the name Neritinidae—but that is another question. ° 


Richter (concurred in by Haas and Wenz) reports: 


7. Neritina Lamarck, 1816, mit N. pulligera (L.) als Typus besteht neben 
Theodoxus Montfort, 1810, mit Nerita fluviatilis L. als Typus, da (wie es 
auch der Einsender fiir wahrscheinlich halt: eine zoologische Frage) die Arten 
pulligera und fluviatilis nicht kongenerisch sind. 

Will man Neritina und Theodoxus als Subgenera in einem Genus vereinigen, 
so heisst dieses Genus 7heodoxus Montfort. 

Da die Spezies corona L., der Genctypus von Clithon Montfort, ebenfalls 
einem anderen Genus oder mindestens einem anderen Subgenus angehdrt (wie 
der eine der Einsender, Baker, in seinen Radula-Untersuchungen, Proc. Acad. 
Nat. Sci. Phila., vol. 75, 1923, p. 117 s., gezeigt hat) so bleibt auch Clithon 
Montf. bestehen: als Genus oder als Subgenus Theodoxus (Clithon) Montf. 


26 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Der Name der Familie (entgegen B,. B. Woodward, der hierin irrt) wird 
dadurch nicht berihrt. 


Chapman reports: 


VII. It appears that Theedoxis is untenable on account of the type being the 
equivalent of Nerita fluviatilis L. I would support the use of Neritina with 
type N. pulligera L., 1766. 


The other reports are as under Cerion. 

8. Clausilia Draparnaud, 1805, type C. rugosa Drap., 1805. Pilsbry and Baker 
report: 

“ Clausilia Drap. (1805, Hist. nat. Moll. France, pp. 24, 68), type designated 
by Turton (1831, Man. Land and F. w. Shells Brit., I, p. 6), Turbo bidens 
Montagu (not Linné), which he includes (p. 75) in the synonymy of 
Clausilia rugosa Drap. (= Pupa rugosa Drap., 1801).” 

Discussion: Turbo bidens Montagu is not included in Drapar- 
naud’s paper under that name, and there seems to be some question as 
to its identity with C. rugosa Drap. As Turton certainly treated the 
two as identical, and this type designation is the first that can be 
considered valid and is the one accepted by the (recent) splitters of 
the original genus, it seems best to fix it. Later type designations 
indicate Turbo bidens L. or Clausilia bidens Drap. or give no authority 
for the species; all three (or four) “ bidens” are identifications of 
the Linnaean species but are now placed in three separate genera. 
Clausilia is the earliest generic name in the Clausiliidae (Gastropoda 
Pulmonata). 

Other reports as under Cerion. 

9. Vitrina Draparnaud, 1801, type Helix pellucida Miller, 1774. Pilsbry and 
Baker report: 

“Vitrina Drap. (1801, Tabl. Moll. France, pp. 33, 98), monotype Vitrina 

pellucida, with Helix pellucida Miller in the synonymy.” 


Discussion: Vitrina is the prior name for the typical genus of 
the Vitrininae and the earliest name in the Zonitidae (Gastropoda 
Pulmonata). However, Draparnaud’s specimens, as figured in his 
more detailed work (1805), seem to have been what was later named 
Helicolimax major Férussac (1807). Montfort (1810, p. 239) chose 
Vitrinus pellucidus (as the type of his emendation) but seems also 
to have confused the two species. Children (1822-1823, p. 100) and 
Gray (1847, p. 169) designated Vitrina pellucida (without authority ). 
Herrmannsen (1849, Index Malac., Vol. II, p. 696) seems to be the 
first definitely to settle the genotype, and chose “ Helix pellucida M.” 
As some writers now place the two species in separate genera, it 
seems best to fix Vitrina exactly on one of them. 


NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 2 


Richter (concurred in by Haas and Wenz) reports:  * 


9. Vitrina Draparnaud, 1801, mit Helix pellucida Muller als Typus besteht 
nach den Regeln ohne Weiteres zu Recht. 

Ob Draparnaud ausser der eigentlichen pellucida Muller noch eine andere Art 
hinzurechnete, zumal in einer spateren VerOffentlichung (1805: Helicolimax 
major Férussac, 1807) und zumal eine damals noch unbeannte Art (major 
erhielt diesen Artnamen erst 1807 durch Férussac), ist gleichgiltig. Diese 
Tiere gehoren eben nicht zur Spezies pellucida Muller. 


Other reports as under Cerion. 


12. Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842, type T. clausa Pfeiffer. Pilsbry and Baker 

report: 

“ Tornatellina Beck (1837, Ind. Moll., p. 80), nude name, including several 
nude species, among them 7. clausa. 

Strobilus Anton (1839, Verz. der Conchyl., p. 46), type designated by Gray 
(1847, P. Z. S., p. 175), for ‘ Strombilus Alton, S. turritus (S. turritus 
Anton, l. c.).. Not Strobila Sars (1835). 

Tornatellina Pfeiffer (1842, Symb. ad hist. Helic., vol. II, pp. 5, 55, 130), 
type designated by Gray (1. c.), Tornatellina clausa (= Strobilus bilamel- 
latus Anton).” 


Discussion: Beck’s Tornatellina is a nomen nudum but Pfeiffer 
vested it and some of Beck’s specific names. Since that time, Tornatel- 
lina has been universally used as the typical genus of the Tornatellini- 
dae (Gastropoda Pulmonata), because those authors who paid any 
attention to the prior Strobilus considered it preoccupied by Strobila. 
Unfortunately, there is also the rather closely related Strobila Morse 
(1864=Strobilops, Strobilopsidae). Tornatellina turrita and T. 
bilamellata (+ clausa) are probably congeneric, although they are 
generally placed in different sections of the genus. Anton’s descrip- 
tions are very brief and would probably be almost unidentifiable 
without Pfeiffer’s subsequent elaborations (1848). 

Richter (concurred in by Haas and Wenz) reports: 

12. Tornatellina Pfeiffer, 1842, mit Strobilus bilamellatus Anton = T. clausa 
als Typus besteht neben 

Strobilus Anton, 1830, mit S. turriius Anton als Typus, solange die Sys- 
tematiker die Arten clausa und turritus nicht als kongenerisch betrachten. Will 
man beide in Subgenera innerhalb eines Genus vereinigen, so muss dieses Genus 
Strobilus Anton heissen; die Subgenera wiirden dann heissen Strobilus (Stro- 
bilus) Anton mit turritus als Typus und Strobilus (Tornatellina) Pfeiffer mit 
clausa als Typus. 

Bather reports: 


‘ 


I agree with Woodward, but point out that this solution is “proper,” 7. e., in 
accord with the Rules, only if Strobilus Anton be regarded as a homonym of 
Strobila Sars. Since that, according to the appellants, was the prevailing view, 
I would leave it undisturbed. If that be not agreed to, I would probably accept 
Suspension of the Rules on the ground of Confusion. [Secretary concurs. ] 


28 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLS 


Other reports as under Cerion. 

On behalf of the Commission, the Secretary wishes to express 
appreciation of the cooperation which the above mentioned con- 
sultants have given in connection with this case. 

In respect to the name Neritina, the following recommendation by 
the Secretary is to be interpreted as applying to its generic status, in 
case Neritina is accepted as generically distinct from Theodorus, but 
to its subgeneric status in case it is accepted only as subgenerically 
distinct. 

In view of the pronounced differences of opinion which have de- 
veloped in the cases of Ampullaria, Auricula, Bithynia, Cyclostoma, 
Artemon, and Cochlicopa, report is postponed until the next meeting 
of the Commission. 

In view of the foregoing premises and discussion, the Secretary 
recommends that the Commission adopt as its Opinion the following : 

Summary.—The following six generic names of MOLLUSCA are 
hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names, with types as 
stated: Cerion (uva), Oleacina (voluta), Neritina (pulligera), 
Clausilia (rugosa), Vitrina (pellucida), Tornatellina (clausa). 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by ten (10) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (K.), Sil- 
vestri, Stiles, Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, eight(8) Commissioners: Bolivar, Handlirsch, Har- 
tert, Jordan (D. S.), Kolbe, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger, Stone. 





NOR OPINIONS II5 TO 123 29 


OPINION 120 
Tue Status oF Achatinus, 1810 


SUMMARY .—Achatinus, 1810, is emendation of and therefore objective 
synonym of Achatina, 1799; the designation of zebra as type of Achatinus 
contravenes Article 30a and c. Achatinus, 1810, invalidates any later use of 
Achatinus in a different sense. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following case has been submitted for 
Opinion by Dr. H. A. Pilsbry and Dr. H. Burrington Baker of the 
Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences: 


What is the status of emendations of generic names? 
(1) Can an emended form be used as a valid name of a genus if 
(a) the original form is preoccupied or 
(b) if the emendation has a different generic type? 
(2) Can an emendation preoccupy a new generic name of later date? 
Case I. Can Achatinus Montfort be used as the name of a genus? The fol- 
lowing names are included tn this problem: 


Achatina Lamarck, 1799, June or July; Mém. Soc. Hist. Nat. Paris, p. 75, 
monotype Bulla achatina L., 1758, Syst. Nat., X, p. 728. 

Achatinus Montfort, 1810, Conchyl. System., Il, pp. 418, 419, emendation cf 
Achatina, but with type by original [definite] designation (p. 419), 
A. sebra=Bulimus sebra Bruguiére, 1792, Encycl. méth., I, p. 357, 
no. 100. 

Cochlitoma Férussac, 1821, Hist. N. g. et p. Moll., Table Limagons, p. 28, 
type designated by Pilsbry, 1904, Man. Conch., 2nd ser., 17, p. 78, Bulimus 
sebra Brug. . 

Achatinus Montfort is undoubtedly an emendation of Achatina Lamarck be- 
cause (a) Montfort almost always changed generic names so as to give 
them a masculine ending, and (b) he included “Achatina zebra Roissy ” 
in the synonymy of his type species. 


The types of Achatina Lamarck and Achatinus Montfort are now placed in 
separate genera. Can Achatinus be used for the African genus of pulmonate 
snails (typified by Bialimus zebra Brug.) or must the name become Cochlitoma 
Férussac? 

Discussion oF CASE—The Secretary has verified the following 
references : 

Achatina Lamarck, 1799, Mém. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris, p. 75, mt. (Article 30c) 

and tat. (Article 30d) Bulla achatina Linn. 

Montfort, 1810, Conch. Syst., vol. 2, pp. 418-420, referring to the 
vernacular name “ L’Agathine”’ quotes a generic name, Achatinus, 
gives a generic diagnosis and adds “ Espéce servant de type au genre, 
Agathine zébre, Achatinus zebra,” with bibliographic references and 
technical and vernacular names. 


30 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


He states that: 


Les Agathines forment un genre entiérement composé de mollusques terrestres, 
et c'est parmi eux que l’on rencontre les plus grands de ces mollusques; celui 
que nous décrivons tient dans cette classe la second rang . . 

Thus it is clear that Achatinus was not a monotypical genus for 
Montfort, 1810. 

On page 420 Montfort adds: 

C’est a de Lamarck que 1’on doit l’établissement du genre agathine; il donna 
pour type l’agathine variée, bulla achatina, de Linné, dans son Systeme des 
animaux sans vertebres. 

It is obvious that Achatinus, 1810, is an emendation of and there- 
fore an absolute synonym of Achatina, 1799. 

This case was submitted to Commissioner Bather for independent 
opinion which he formulated as follows: 

Achatinus being merely an emendation must have the same genotype as 
Achatina which, fortunately, was monotypic. Montfort had no power to desig- 
nate any other type. 

Therefore, Achatinus cannot be used for Bulimus zebra Brug. if 
it belongs, as now alleged, to a different genus from Bulla achatina 
Linn. 

Therefore, on the evidence submitted, the name for a genus with 
B. zebra as genotype must be Cochlitoma Férussac. 

The Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt as its 
Opinion the following: 

SumMARY.—Achatinus, 1810, is emendation of and therefore ob- 
jective synonym of Achatina, 1799; the designation of gebra as type 
of Achatinus contravenes Article 30a and c. Achatinus, 1810, invali- 
dates any later use of Achatinus in a different sense. 

Opinion prepared by Bather and Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by ten (10) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, 
Chapman, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Horvath, Silvestri, Stejneger, Stiles, 
Stone. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, eight (8) Commissioners: Bolivar, Hartert, Ishikawa, 
Jordan (D. S.), Jordan (K.), Kolbe, Neveu-Lemaire, Warren. 





NO. OPINIONS II5 TO 123 31 


N 


OPINION 121 


NECESSITY FOR SUSPENSION OF RULES IN CASE OF Agasoma 
Gass, 1869, TYPE sinuatum, Not PRovep 


SUMMARY.—As the arguments submitted for Suspension of the Rules in 
the case of Agasoma have not been convincing to the seven consulting con- 
chologists and paleontologists who have studied this case, the Commission 
does not see its way clear to approve Suspension. Agasoma Gabb, 1869, type 
sinuatum, is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. 


PRESENTATION OF CASE.—Hoyt Rodney Gale, of Leland Stan- 
ford Jr. University, has submitted the following case: 


In the “ Paleontology of California,” Volume 2, page 46, 1869, W. M. Gabb 
described a new genus which he called Agasoma. After describing the genus he 
lists two species, Agasoma gravida and Agasoma sinuata, both of which he had 
described as Clavella in an earlier part of the same volume, which had been 
published separately in 1866. In both places Agasoma gravida is placed before 
the other species, and it is mentioned as being “ abundant,’ whereas sinuata 
is mentioned as “a rare shell.” There can be little question but that Gabb had 
the common shell more in mind when describing the genus. The common shell 
has since then been well-known to all West Coast paleontologists and has be- 
come the type of the “4A gasoma gravidum zone” of the Oligocene. It has been 
considered the type of the genus by West Coast workers, and other species simi- 
lar to it have been described; whereas Gabb’s two rather poor specimens of 
sinuatum have stood practically alone. However, it being such a generally 
recognized fact that Agasoma gravidum was the type, no one on the West Coast 
took the pains to state it definitely until English revised the group in 1914 
(Univ. Calif. Publ., Bull. Dept. Geol. Sci., vol. 8, p. 245, 1914). In 1922, Trask, 
thinking sinuatum generically distinct, proposed the name Koilopleura for it 
(Univ. Calif. Publ., Bull. Dept. Geol. Sci., vol. 13, p. 157, 1922). In the mean- 
time, however, and many years before English’s paper was published, Cossman 
wrote the type of the genus as sinuata (Essais Paleo, Comp., vol. 4, p. 148, 
1901). This fact was first brought to the attention of West Coast paleontologists 
by Stewart who proposed the name Bruclarkia for what had been considered 
typical Agasoma (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., vol. 78, p. 399, 1926). 

Cossman knew nothing at all about the situation, not realizing that one of 
the groups is little more than a curiosity, not realizing that the other group is 
so important that a change in name would be a source of annoyance and incon- 
venience to geologists as well as paleontologists, who even at that time knew 
the species of Agasoma as important horizon markers, not having heard of the 
important new species of Agasoma previously described by Cooper (Bull. No, 4, 
Calif. State Mining Bureau, p. 53, pl. 5, fig. 63, 1894), probably never having 
seen a specimen of gravidum, and surely never having seen a specimen of 
sinuatum. Thus Cossman’s work is not a revision of the genus, and although 
the old rule requiring a man to “revise” the group in order to make the citation 
of the type valid does not hold, there is at least a strong feeling against his 
method. Cossman clearly should not have taken it upon himself to arrange a 


32 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


matter about which he must have known so little. It is not surprising that the 
West Coast paleontologists overlooked a French citation of the type of a genus 
which is not known outside of the Oligocene and Miocene of California, Oregon, 
and Washington. 

Since the original author must have intended Agasoma gravidum to be the 
type, since it has been so considered by West Coast paleontologists, since the 
first real reviser of the genus named it as the type, and since it would be a pity 
to make incorrect so much of our geologic and paleontologic literature merely 
because of an unwitting blunder, I ask if it is not possible, under the Suspension 
of the Rules, to cite Agasoma gravidum again as the type of the genus? 

DISCUSSION OF CASE.—This case has been submitted to the follow- 
ing persons for study and expert opinion: 

(1) Dr. Paul Bartsch, United States National Museum, Washington, D. C. 

(2) Dr. F. A, Bather, British Museum, London, England. 

(3) Commissioner F. Chapman, A. L. S., Museum, Melbourne, Australia, 

(4) Dr. L. R. Cox, British Museum, London, England. 

(5) Dr. Rudolph Richter, Senkenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, 
Frankfurt a. M., Germany. 

(6) Dr. T. W. Stanton, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D. C. 

(7) Dr. B. B. Woodward, London, England. 


The reports from all seven consultants agree on the point that 
Agasoma does not represent a case for which Suspension of the 
Rules is advisable. 

On basis of the advice submitted by these seven consultants, the 
Secretary is not persuaded that “the strict application of the Rules 
will clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity,’ and he 
therefore recommends that the Commission adopt, as its Opinion, the 
following : 

SumMARY.—As the arguments submitted for Suspension of the 
Rules in the case of Agasoma have not been convincing to the seven 
consulting conchologists and paleontologists who have studied this 
case, the Commission does not see its way clear to approve Suspension. 
Agasoma Gabb, 1869, type sinuatum, is hereby placed in the Official 
List of Generic Names. 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by eleven (11) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan 
(K.), Silvestri, Stiles, Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, seven (7) Commissioners: Bolivar, Hartert, Jordan 
(D. S.), Kolbe, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger, Stone. 


NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 33 


OPINION 122 


SEVEN GENERIC NAMES IN PRIMATES AportreD IN THE 
OFFICIAL List OF GENERIC NAMES 


SUMMARY.—The following generic names in Primates are hereby placed in 
the Official List of Generic Names, with type species as cited: Colobus (poly- 
comos), Galago (galago), Gorilla (gorilla), Hylobates (lar), Lemur (catta), 
Pithecia (pithecia), Tarsius (spectrum). 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Commissioner Apstein has proposed the 
following seven generic names of Primates as nomina conservanda: 


1. Colobus Mliger, 1811, Prodromus Syst. Mamm. et Avium, p. 60, tsd. poly- 
comos Schreber, type locality West Africa. 
Galago Geoffr., 1796, Mag. Encycl., vol. 2, no. I, p. 40, 1 pl., tat. senegalensis 
Geoffr. = galago Schreber, type locality Senegal. 
3. Gorilla Geoffr., 1852, C. r. Acad. Sci., Paris, vol. 34, p. 84, tat. gorilla 
Savage, 1847, type locality Gaboon River, West Africa. 
4. Hylobates Illiger, 1811, Prodromus Syst. Mamm. et Avium, p. 67, mt. 
Homo lar Linn., 1771, type locality Malay Peninsula. 
5. Lemur Linn., 1758a, Syst. Nat., vol. I, p. 20, type catta Linn., 1758a, 30, 
type locality Madagascar. 
6. Pithecia Desm., 1804, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat., vol. V, p. 24, Tab. méth. 
Mamm., 8, tat. Simia pithecia Linn., 1766, type locality Guiana. 
7. Tarsius Storr, 1780, Prodromus Meth. Mamm., pp. 33, 34, Tab. A, mt. 
spectrum Pallas, 1778, so. tat. tarsier Erxl., 1777, = tarsius, type locality 
East Indies. 


ty 


Discussion.—These names have been compared with the various 
nomenclators, with a considerable portion of the special literature on 
Primates, and with the original place of publication. In addition, they 
have been submitted to Dr. Gerrit S. Miller, Jr., of the United States 
National Museum, who considers them valid under the Rules. The 
Secretary has studied them and concurs in Doctor Miller’s opinion. 

In view of the foregoing premises, the Secretary recommends the 
adoption of these names in the Official List of Generic Names. 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by twelve (12) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan 
(K.), Silvestri, Stiles, Stone, Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, six (6) Commissioners: Hartert, Jordan (D. S.), 
Kolbe, Loennberg, Neveu-Lemaire, Stejneger. 


34 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


OPINION 123 


P. F. GMeELIN’s ONoMATOLOGIA HistTorRIAE NATURALIS 
COMPLETA SUPPRESSED 

SUMMARy.—Because of room for difference of opinion in interpreting many 
of the names in Gmelin’s (1758-77) Onomatologia Historiae Naturalis Com- 
pleta, their adoption in nomenclature would produce greater confusion than 
uniformity. Accordingly under Suspension of the Rules (if need be) this 
entire work (vols. 1-7) is hereby excluded from use under the International 
Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. 

PRESENTATION OF CASE.—In connection with a well-known generic 
name in Insecta, J. C. Budwell of the United States National 
Museum, Washington, D. C., has requested an opinion on the nomen- 
clatorial status of P. F. Gmelin’s Onomatologia Historiae Naturalis 
Completa. 

Discussion.—Through the courtesy of the Surgeon General’s 
Library, United States Army, the Secretary has been able to examine 
a complete set of this very rare and in some respects very remarkable 
publication, which is variously attributed to Gmelin, and to Gmelin 
(volumes 1-4.) and Christman (volumes 5-7). 

The complete title as given in volume I reads: 

Onomatologia Medica Completa seu Onomatologia Historiae Naturalis oder 
vollstindiges Lexicon das alle Benennungen der Kunstwoerter der Naturge- 
schichte nach ihren ganzen Umfang erklaert und den reichen Schatz der ganzen 
Natur durch deutliche und richtige Beschreibungen des nuetzlichen und sonder- 
baren von allen Thieren, Pflanzen und Mineralien, sowohl vor Aerzte als andere 
Liebhaber in sich fasst zu allgemeinem Gebrauch von einer Gesellschaft natur- 
forschender Aerzte nach den richtigsten Urkunden zusammengetragen. Ulm 
Frankfurt und Leipzig auf Kosten der Gaumischen Handlung. 1758. 

With volume 2 the chief title is dropped and the subtitle of volume 1 
is adopted to read as follows: Onomatologia Historiae Naturalis 
Completa oder Vollstandiges Lexicon [ete.]. 

The seven volumes represent a dictionary, lexicon, or encyclopedic 
arrangement of names (chiefly Latin) in alphabetic order. [Ono- 
matologia, 7. e., Nomenclator.] Under generic names the specific 
names are given alphabetically. 

The last work of Linnaeus cited in the bibliography given in 
volume 1 is his Systema Naturae, 1748. Thus it is clear that the 
Onomatologia starts out on the pre-Linnean system of nomenclature 
without reference to the Linnean system of 1751; furthermore, in 
the earlier volumes the entries lack date and page references. 

In a supplementary bibliography given in volume 3, the tenth edition 
of Linnaeus’ Systema Naturae is cited, and to this the date “ 1760” 
instead of 1758 is given. Accordingly it is not strange that with this 





NO. 7 OPINIONS II5 TO 123 35 


number Linnean names (on a binary and binomial basis) with page 
references are cited. 

In volume 4, 1773, according to the Introduction, p. 5, the twelfth 
edition of Linné’s Systema Naturae is definitely adopted. 

The introduction to volume 5, 1775, pp. 2-3, definitely states that 
Linnean method and terminology are adopted. 

Accordingly the seven volumes represent two different plans of 
nomenclature—one, the pre-Linnean (polynomial) and the other the 
Linnean plan (binary and binomial). This point in itself might tend 
to make confusion for many in case this series of books is admitted 
under the International Rules, as it would add numerous new cases to 
a group of names which, though settled in principle by the Rules and 
Opinions, is still made a subject of controversial discussion. 

A second point of confusion would arise from an element which 
the Secretary interprets as a cross-reference to the species, but which 
some authors, not without justification, might argue represents entries 
of new generic mames. Under this latter interpretation confusion will 
result and the extent of this confusion cannot at present be foreseen. 
As examples, the following may be cited: 

Vol. 2, 1761, p. 267, “Bombyx .... Papilio Bombyx ....der Seiden- 

wurm”’; 

Vol. 3, 1766, p. 460, Crocodilus (referred to Linn.) is cross-referenced to 

(s. [= siehe]) Lacerta crocodilus Linn., tenth edition ; 

p. 566, “ Cypraea Lynx. s. Lynx Cypraea,” cf. vol. 4, 1773, p. 918, “ Lynx. 
Cypraeca Lynx.” Thus Lynx might become the name of a mollusk, 
and Lynx Kerr, 1792, mammal, would then become a homonym; 

p. 585, Dama is quoted as if it might be a generic name, and refers to 
Cervus dama Linn., tenth edition, p. 67, no. 5; 

Vol. 6, 1775, p. 2, “ Paca. s. Cavia Paca.’ This might be interpreted by some 

authors as a new generic name based on Cavia paca; 

p. 610, “ Polcat. s. Viverra Putorius.” Probably for the English polecat, 
but might easily be interpreted as a generic name; 

p. 815, “ Rattus s. Mus Rattus” ; 

p. 815, “ Rattus moschatus” quoted from 1725. Two interpretations 
might be made by different authors: (1) that the genus Rattus, 
type Mus Rattus is proposed and that this genus includes also 
Rattus moschatus; or (2) that Rattus is a specific cross-reference 
to Mus Rattus and that Rattus moschatus is simply a quotation 
from 1725. 

A third type of confusion would result because of the entries of 
pre-Linnean names in connection with which it is sometimes difficult 
to conclude whether they are blind dictionary (or bibliographic) 
citations or whether they should be interpreted as adopted by the 
author. Examples: 

Vol. 2, p. 114, “ Bacillus. s. astacus petrificatus vulgo,” cf. “Astacus petrifica- 

tus vulgo ... . versteinerte Krebse,” vol. 2, p. 21. Bacillus would 
stand in danger of being transferred from the insects to crustacea; 


36 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


p. 214 ff., Blatta is used both for roaches and (as Blatta bizantia Ron- 
deletti) for the operculum of an African mollusk. 
Vol. 3, p. 503, Cuniculus, the rabbit, with species, quoted from Gesner. 
Vol. 5, 1775, p. 52, Mandril refers to large man-like apes on the Gold Coast of 
Africa, bipeds, not quadrupeds. The word might be interpreted as 
a generic name by some authors or might be interpreted as a ver- 
nacular name. If interpreted as a generic name some authors would 
probably look upon this as the correct name for the chimpanzee. 
Vol. 2, p. 278, “ Bos, der Ochs”; 
p. 286, “ Bos pisces” (referring to Bos Plin., a fish). 

Sherborn (1902@) cites the Onomatologia in the bibliography to his 
Index Animalium, part I, but he rejects its names on the ground 
that they are not binominal “[n. b.].” 

As a source of historical information on the early ideas and con- 
cepts in zoology this Onomatologia is undoubtedly a wonderful and 
valuable piece of work which will be found useful by any zoologist 
dealing with species published prior to 1777. 

The publication in question is exceedingly rare and difficult to 
obtain. Its acceptance in nomenclature would place numerous sys- 
tematists working on Linnean genera and species at a very distinct 
disadvantage and at this late date in the progress of nomenclature it 
would be difficult to justify the imposition of this inconvenience to 
specialists in the Linnean genera, especially since this might involve 
financial outlays which science can ill afford in the present state of 
world economics. 

The one and only argument in favor of the acceptance of this work 
on a nomenclatorial basis, as far as the Secretary can see, is repre- 
sented by the principle of the blind adherence to the Law of Priority 
no matter what the consequences may be. 

Under the circumstances the Secretary recommends the adoption 
of the following as the Opinion of the Commission: 

SumMMAry.—Because of room for difference of opinion in inter- 
preting many of the names in Gmelin’s (1758-77) Onomatologia 
Historiae Naturalis Completa, their adoption in nomenclature would 
produce greater confusion than uniformity. Accordingly under Sus- 
pension of the Rules (if need be) this entire work (vols. I-7) is 
hereby excluded from use under the International Rules of Zoological 
Nomenclature. 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by twelve (12) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Chapman, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Horvath, Jordan (K.), 
Silvestri, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone, Warren. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, six (6) Commissioners: Bolivar, Hartert, Ishikawa, 
Jordan (D. S.), Kolbe, Neveu-Lemaire. 











SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 


VOLUME 73, NUMBER 8 


OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


OPINIONS 124 TO 133 


(PUBLICATION 3395) 


CITY OF WASHINGTON 
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 
OCTOBER 28, 1936 

















SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS 


VOLUME 73, NUMBER 8 


OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


OPINIONS 124 TO 133 


~eeeOtoe 





(PUBLICATION 3395) 


CITY OF WASHINGTON 
PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 
OCTOBER 28, 1936 





The Lord Baltimore Press 


BALTIMORE, MD., U. 8. a. 


OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL 
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL 
NOMENCLATURE 


OPINIONS 124 TO 133 


OPINION 124 
LINNAEUS, 1758, SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA 


SUMMARY.—The various Subdivisions of genera published by Linnaeus in 
1758 are not to be accepted as of this date (1758) as of subgeneric value under 
the International Rules. 


STATEMENT OF CASE. 





Several zoologists have requested the Com- 
mission to make a definite ruling in regard to the status of the sub- 
division of genera found in Linnaeus, 1758a. One case is before the 
Commission at present (Bulla) which makes a ruling on this point 
very desirable and at least one other case is likely to be submitted to 
the Commission in the very near future. 

Discusston.—Considerable difference of opinion exists among zool- 


On account of the situation presented, the Commission has made 
a page by page study of the tenth edition of the “ Systema Naturae ”’ 
and has tabulated the subdivisions into various categories. A result of 
this tabulation shows conclusively that it is impossible to look upon 
all these subdivisions as definitely named subgenera, and if one at- 
tempts to grant subgeneric nomenclatorial value to certain of these 
categories and to deny it to others it is found to be exceedingly diffi- 
cult, in fact impossible, to present a plan which is free from objection. 

The subject was laid before the Commission in Circular Letter 
No. 137, series 1928, and this Circular Letter with the text of the 
tenth edition was studied by the Commission during its meeting in 
Padua in August and September 1930. 

As a result of this study the Commission adopted the following 
paragraph in its Minutes for August 30, 1930: 

After a discussion of the so-called subgenera in Linnaeus, 1758a, the Secre- 


tary was instructed to prepare an Opinion to the effect that these are not sub- 


SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS, VOL.73, No. 8 


2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


genera, but if any group of specialists finds that because of the literature on said 
group this Opinion will produce greater confusion than uniformity, the Commis- 
sion is prepared to take up individual cases under arguments which may be 
submitted. 

Pursuant to these instructions, the Secretary presented the draft of 
this Opinion for formal vote. 

The adoption of this Opinion automatically settles the case of Bulla 
now before the Commission, i. e., the alleged subgenus Bulla Linn., 
1758, insect, is not a subgenus under this Opinion and therefore does 
not affect in any way the standing of Bulla Linn., 1758a, mollusk. 

Even in absence of this Opinion the case of Bulla would be settled 
under the following amendment to Article 36 (on homonyms ) adopted 
at Padua, 1930: 

When homonyms are of the same date, whether by the same or by different 
authors, then any name proposed for a genus takes precedence over a name 
[its homonym] proposed for a subgenus. The same principle is applicable to 
homonyms of species and subspecies of identical date. 

The Secretary has the honor to recommend that the Summary as 
given above be accepted as the Opinion of the Commission. 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Chapman, Cabrera, Pellegrin, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan 
(K.), Stephenson, Silvestri, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, five (5) Commissioners: Bolivar, Handlirsch, Jordan 
(D. S.), Richter, Warren. 


no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 3 


OPINION 125 


Boros HErsst, 1797, AND Borus AGAssiz, 1846, vs. Borus ALBERS, 
1850 


SUMMARY.—Borus Agassiz, 1846, is an emendation of, and therefore an 
absolute synonym of, Boros Herbst, 1797; Borus Albers, 1850, is a dead 
homonym. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Dr. H. A. Pilsbry, of the Academy of Natu- 
ral Sciences of Philadelphia, submits the following case for Opinion: 


In Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, Jahre. 92 (for 1926), Abth. A, 8 Heft, July 
1928, p. 66, E. Strand proposes to reject the name “ Borus Albers, 1850”, on 
account of Borus L. Agassiz, Nomencl. Zool., 1846, in Coleoptera, and to replace 
it by Corus Jousseaume, 1877. 

Borus was suggested by Agassiz (Nom. Zool. Index Univ., p. 49) as an 
emendation of Boros Herbst, 1797. Under present conditions the names Boros 
and Borus would be considered sufficiently different (Opinion 25 of the Inter- 
national Commission). In my opinion the original spelling of each name is all 
that need be considered; subsequent variants or emendations having no status in 
nomenclature. According to this view Borus Albers will stand. 

“Corus (Bulimus) valenciennensi” (sic) was mentioned with other snails by 
Jousseaume (Bull. Soc. Zool. France, vol. 2, p. 311, 1877), but without any 
intimation that the name was new. In the same paragraph and elsewhere in the 
same communication, new names proposed are so designated, and moreover are 
printed in heavy face type. It is clear, therefore, that “ Corus” was a pen error 
or printer’s error for Borus. Such an error seems the more likely as there are 
two mistakes in the name “ valenciennesi” (a well-known species of Borus) in 
the same line. I do not think that such an evident error is available as basis for 
a new name. 

Megalobulimus K. Miller, Malak. Blatter, vol. 25, p. 172, 1878, for Borus 
garcia-moreni Miller (= B. popelairianus var. thanunianus v. Martens) is 
available for the Borus group in case Borus is rejected. 


Discussion.—This case was studied independently by Commis- 
sioner Bather, by the Secretary, and by Dr. Paul Bartsch of the 
United States National Museum. The opinions prepared by all three 
are in agreement. The Opinion as worded by Commissioner Bather 
reads as follows: 


By Art. 19, the name Boros Herbst should be preserved unless an error of 
transcription, a lapsus calami, or a typographical error is evident. Since the 
name is obviously the Greek Bopés none of these is evident. 

But by Art. 8, Recommendation a and Appendix f, Herbst ‘“ should” have 
written Borus. Since this recommendation is based on the previous usage of both 
classical scholars and the early systematists (who were for the most part 
scholars), Agassiz was within his rights in emending to Borus. 


4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLS 


If his right be disputed, then, since there is no possible question of an error 
of transcription, etc., Boras Agassiz is a synonym of Boros Herbst. 

Borus Albers, it can hardly be doubted, is also a transliteration of Boros. 
If a correct name, it is a homonym of Borus Ag. If incorrect, it should be 
written Boros and so becomes a homonym of Boros Herbst. Art. 36, Recom- 
mendation, does not apply to this case. 

Therefore according to strict application of Art. 34, and Opinion 83, Borus 
Albers is to be rejected. 


The Secretary recommends that the Summary, as given above, be 
adopted as the Opinion of the Commission. 

Opinion prepared by Bather, Stiles, and Bartsch. 

Opinion concurred in by fourteen (14) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Cabrera, Chapman, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (K.), Pelle- 
grin, Richter, Silvestri, Stejneger, Stephenson, Stiles, Stone. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, four (4) Commissioners: Bolivar, Handlirsch, Jordan 
(D.S.); Warren. 

Commissioner Richter adds: 

Ich stimme der Opinion zu. 

Zur Discussion, Absatz 3, habe ich aber grundsatzlich zu bemerken: Nicht- 
befolgung eines Ratschlags bei der Aufstellung eines Namens gibt kein Recht, 
den Namen nachtraglich im Sinne dieses Ratschlags zu Gndern. Herbst, 1797, 


“should have written Borus”; wenn er aber Boros geschrieben hat, so hat 
Agassiz, 1846, nicht das Recht, Boros in Borus zu andern. 





no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 


OPINION 126 


New NaMEs IN D’OrpIGNY’'S, 1850, “ PRoDROME” ARE NOMENCLA- 
TORIALLY AVAILABLE 


SUMMARyY.—On basis of evidence and expert advice of outstanding special- 
ists, the Commission does not see its way clear to declare the new names in 
d’Orbigny’s, 1850, “ Prodrome” as unavailable or as nomina nuda under the 
Rules. 





PRESENTATION OF CASE. 
L. R. Cox and W. J. Arkell: 


That the new specific names published by A. d’Orbigny in his “* Prodrome de 
Paléontologie Stratigraphique Universelle” (3 vols., Paris, 1850) shall be con- 
sidered as nomina nuda and shall have no status in nomenclature, unless they are 
accompanied by a reference to a figure or description published by some previous 
author. 

As specialists in the Mesozoic Mollusca, we are of the opinion that the sup- 
pression of these names is desirable in order to avoid numerous changes in current 
nomenclature, while few, if any, changes would result from such suppression. 
The “ Prodrome”’ purported to be a complete synopsis of the fossil Invertebrata 
known to the author at the time of its compilation (1847). Besides listing all 
species which had been described prior to that date, and providing new specific 
names in cases of preoccupation, etc., it includes a great number of new names 
given to previously undescribed species ; most of these came from French localities 
and were represented in the author’s own collection. In each case the horizon 
and localities are given, and a brief comment is made on the species, but this 
rarely occupies more than two lines and is quite inadequate as a specific diagnosis. 
Examples: “ Teredo antiquatus d’Orb., 1847. Espece a tubes trés-longs. France, 
Thouars (Deux-Sévres)” (vol. 1, p. 251); “ Lucina sarthacensis dOrb., 1847. 
Espéce trés-comprimée, presque circulaire. France, Pizieux, Chaumont” (vol. 
I; Pe 339): 

If these names are discarded as nomina nuda, as here suggested, d’Orbigny’s 
species will only be valid as from the date of their earliest description by a later 
author. Example: Astarte socialis dOrbigny (vol. 2, p. 60) will date from its 
description by De Loriol in 1867 (Mém. Soc. Phys. Geneve, vol. 19, p. 60), and 
will be referred to as “ Astarte socialis de Loriol ex d’Orbigny.” In most cases 
the first descriptions of d’Orbigny’s species are in a work by M. Boule and others 
now appearing in installments in the “ Annales de Paléontologie”’, and figuring 
the supposed types. In a few cases d’Orbigny’s species have been guessed at 
and misinterpreted by later authors; such misinterpretations, if accompanied 
by proper descriptions, will be accepted as having the status of original descrip- 
tions. In most cases later workers have necessarily ignored d’Orbigny’s species, 
and many of them have been described under other names, which are now 
familiar in the literature. Names proposed by d’Orbigny as substitute-names, etc., 
will of course remain valid, since they are accompanied by references to descrip- 


The following case has been submitted by 


tions in previous literature. D’Orbigny’s new genera will not be valid if the only 


6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL.473 


species referred to them are those suppressed as nomina nuda (e. g., Sowerbya 
d’Orbigny, vol. 1, p. 362, will be rejected in favor of Jsodonta Buvignier, 1851, 
in accordance with current practice) ; in most cases the new genera include 
previously described species, and genotypes will be available. 


Discussion.—The decision on this case is obviously one of far- 
reaching importance, and is likely to be cited more or less frequently 
by various authors in reaching decisions on similar cases. It seemed 
wise, therefore, to obtain expressions of opinion from a number of 
specialists in different parts of the world before preparing a formal 
opinion to be submitted to the Commission for vote. In response to 
invitations to specialists to discuss the case, the following replies have 
been received. 

in Re Cos states): 


In submitting the question of d’Orbigny’s “ Prodrome” names to the Inter- 
national Commission, our primary object was to obtain a definite ruling upon a 
matter in which uncertainty has always existed, the majority of authors having 
deliberately rejected these names as being accompanied by absolutely inadequate 
descriptions. It seemed to us that it would be unreasonable to revive his names, 
with the resulting disappearance of familiar ones, without obtaining some opinion 
on the matter, and our recommendation was made in the hope that it might be 
possible to avoid such changes. 

The main objections to our recommendation are: 

t. It would be a dangerous precedent to create, since the validity of several 
early authors might similarly be questioned. Also, a description which now 
appears inadequate may have been quite sufficient at a time when fewer species 
were known.—D’Orbigny, however, writing so late as 1847, cannot be classed 
with authors half a century and more before him. Descriptive terminology was 
very well advanced by his time, and in his other works he gives good descriptions 
and figures, showing that his ‘“‘ Prodrome” descriptions were not intended very 
seriously. 

2. The “ Prodrome” is a work of great merit, and Professor Boule protests 
against a proposal to set it aside so lightly—The value of this work for the 
purpose for which it was compiled is not questioned, but in the Introduction 
(p. Ilvi) d’Orbigny says: “En publiant notre “ Prodrome de Paléontologie 
Stratigraphique’”’ nous n’avons pas eu en vue de décrire des especes.” The new 
names were probably merely introduced in the same way as nomina nuda often 
get published in lists prior to description of the species, and it is quite certain 
that d’Orbigny intended to publish proper descriptions in the “ Paléontologie 
Francaise ”, later on. 

3. Even if his descriptions are valueless, his types have always been accessible 
in Paris.—The idea that the publication of a description is an unimportant 
formality, the preservation of a type specimen being the chief thing, seems to be 
current in some quarters, but fortunately not among paleontologists in general. 
We might just as well accept noimina nuda, where a type specimen is extant. 

I realize that this is an important test case and it may prove discreet for the 
Commission to rule once and for all that no specific name published, even with 
only a single word of comment is to be rejected on the grounds of inadequate 


” 


description. 





no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 7 


In a letter to Dr. Bather, W. J. Arkell discusses the case as follows : 


Cox’s letter to you on the subject of d’Orbigny seems to me to be rather too 
unconcerned. To say ‘that our primary object was to obtain a definite ruling ”, 
as if it did not matter much one way or the other, is too mild a statement for 
my view of the case, so may I give my reasons more fully? 

Dr. Stiles, in the last paragraph of his letter (herewith), says “but in this 
particular instance it is not clear to me how many names are involved or how 
much of an upset would occur.” At the outset, therefore, I should like to make 
it clear that I am in favor of the suppression of d’Orbigny’s ‘“ Prodrome” 
names, not because of any prejudice against d’Orbigny or his work, but solely to 
prevent just such an “upset” of a very large number of familiar species. 

I am fresh from trying to compile a monograph of the Bathonian Lamel- 
libranchs, and it has been vividly brought home to me in the course of this work 
what a revolution in nomenclature the recognition of the “ Prodrome” names 
would bring about. For the “ Prodrome” was published in 1850, and Morris and 
Lycett’s “Monograph on the Mollusca from the Great Oolite”, from which 
nearly all our familiar names are drawn, was published in 1853-4. Morris and 
Lycett, who described and figured the species so well, very rightly gave up the 
attempt to interpret the ‘‘ Prodrome” species, which they regarded as virtual 
nomina nuda. In the few instances where they thought they recognised one of 
d’Orbigny’s species they were always wrong. For instance, Trigonia cassiope 
[of] Lycett is not T. cassiope d’Orb., which has since turned out to be a synonym 
of T. pullus Sow. The original diagnosis was as follows: “ Espece voisine du 
T. Costata, mais plus longue et pourvue sur l’area anale de trois grosse cOtes 
saillantes crenelées indépendamment des cOtes intermédiaires: Luc, Vézelay, etc.” 
On this Boule comments in the “ Types du Prodrome”, 1913, p. 145: “‘ Cette 
diagnose a donné lieu a des interprétations diverses. Lycett a decrit et figure 
sous ce nom des échantillons qui doivent étre pris comme types (Suppl. Mon. 
Moll. Gt. Ool., pl. 37, fig. 10, et Mon. Brit. Foss. Trig., pl. 32, figs. 1 and 5). 
La collection d’Orbigny renferme sous ce nom des échantillons variés; les uns 
sont indéterminables, tels que celui de Vézelay, la plupart des autres sont des 
T. pullus Sow., ainsi que l’a reconnu M. Bigot.” 

Again, with regard to Myoconcha actaeon d’Orb., Boule writes: “ L’échan- 
tillon de la collection d’Orbigny est trés mauvais; il faut prendre comme type la 
figure de M. actaeon donnée par Morris et Lycett..... - 

You will notice that in both these quotations there is a tacit assumption that 
it is only d’Orbigny’s type specimen which could give the name validity, but 
when this has to be rejected Morris and Lycett’s species should be regarded as 
the types. There is no suggestion that d’Orbigny’s descriptions should give the 
species validity. 

If we reject some of d’Orbigny’s names on the ground that the type specimens 
are unsatisfactory, it seems to be introducing an arbitrary factor in the form of 
personal opinion, and I do not see how anyone is to pronounce finally whether the 
type specimen of any species is satisfactory or not. Anyone’s work is liable to be 
overturned at any moment by the expression of a different Opinion about the 
d’Orbigny collection in Paris. I have referred to this collection in a few cases 
myself, and know there is plenty of scope for different interpretations. The 
species in many of the boxes are composite. 


8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


How little thought d’Orbigny bestowed on the assigning of his names is shown 
by the system on which he worked. He gave all the species of one genus fantastic 
names with the same initial letter, after the manner of naming a class of 
warships or liners, e. g.: Lima harpax, L. hellica, L. hippia, L. hille; Avicula 
jason, A. janassia, A. janira, A. jarbas, A. janthe, etc. Many of the names so 
lightly assigned are scarcely worthy of varietal distinction. For instance five 
trivial varieties of forms in our familiar Great Oolite “ Cyprina” loweana Morris 
and Lycett appear in the “ Prodrome” as C. antiope, C. alcyon, C. amphitryton, 
C. arion and C. arethusa. All these names have priority over Morris and Lycett’s 
loweana. 

As far as my work has taken me, the recognition of d’Orbigny’s names would 
involve the following changes in the Great Oolite alone: 

Arca eudesii Morris and Lyc. would become Arca eudora dOrb. Arca 
tenuitexta M. and L. would become Arca electra dOrb. Cucullaea clathrata 
Leckenby would become C. euryta d’Orb. Mytilus subreniformis M. and L. would 
become M. galanthus d’Orb. Trigonia cassiope Lycett would require a new name. 
Pecten hemicostatus M. and L. would become P. rhetus d’Orb. Astarte rustica 
Lyc. would become A. vesta d’Orb. Cyprina loweana M. and L. would become 
C. antiope d’Orb. Protocardia stricklandi M. and L. sp. would become P. cybele 
d’Orb. Protocardia buckmani M. and L. would become P. luciense dOrb. (?) 
Unicardium parvulum M. and L. would become U. ovoideum d’Orb. Corbula 
agatha Lycett would require a new name. 

In the Corallian: 

Nucula oxfordiana Roeder would become Nucula hellica d@Orb. Myoconcha 
texta Buv. would become M. radiata d’Orb. Astarte subdepressa Blake and 
Hudlin. would become A. pasiphae d’Orb. Astarte nummus Sauvage would 
become A. pelops dOrb. Astarte contejeani de Loriol would become A. phillis 
dOrb. Isocyprina cyreniformis Buv. sp., would become J. dimorpha dOrb. 
Unicardium excentricum (d’Orb.) Dollfuss would become U. aceste d’Orb. 

Further research will probably bring many other changes to light, and where 
it will end can only be determined by prolonged study of the d’Orbigny collection 
in Paris. The names in the “ Prodrome” being for all practical purposes 
nomina nuda, it seems only fair that they should be officially recognised as such 
in theory. 


B. B. Woodward (London) writes : 


I am entirely in accord with Mr. L. R. Cox and W. J. Arkell in considering 
that the new specific names published by d’Orbigny in his “ Prodrome de 
Paléontologie Stratigraphique Univ.” should be regarded as nomina nuda unless 
accompanied by a reference to a figure or description published by some previous 
author. 


M. Boule, Professor of Paleontology at the Muséum national 
d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, and Curator of the d’Orbigny Collection, 
presents the following considerations : 

Il est de mon devoir de protester contre la proposition de MM. Cox et Arkell 
de traiter aussi légérement l’oeuvre considérable et si utile d’Alcide d’Orbigny 
et de considérer, d’ores et déja, comme inexistantes (nomina nuda) les espéces 
du “ Prodrome”, en arguant du fait qu’elles n’ont pas été figurées. 


no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 9 


I] faut remarquer tout d’abord que beaucoup de ces espéces ont été réétudiées 
sur place, d’aprés les échantillons euxmemes par divers paléontologistes qui en 
ont figuré un certain nombre dans leurs propres travaux. 

De plus, la figuration trés soignée des échantillons types ayant servi aux 
courtes descriptions de d’Orbigny dans son ‘“‘ Prodrome” a été précisément 
entreprise par mes soins, dés 1906 dans les “ Annales de Paléontologie”, pour 
satisfaire aux desiderata exprimés de tous cOotés et pour remédier dans une 
certaine mesure a la complication croissante et déplorable de la nomenclature. 

En 1923, l'ensemble de cette publication formait un premier volume illustré de 
34 planches en phototypie et de dessins dans le texte ou se trouvent citées ou 
décrites pres d’un millier d’especes (Silurien-Bathonien), avec rappel des publica- 
tions antérieures relatives a ces especes. 

Depuis 1923, ce travail se continue régulicrement dans les ‘“ Annales de 
Paléontologie.” Les espéces des étages Callovien et Oxfordien ont été figurées, 
celles de l’étage Corallien sont en cours et la publication se poursuivra avec 
le plus-de célérité possible. 

Je proteste également contre l’affirmation de MM. Cox et Arkell que les 
échantillons figurés par nos soins sont des types supposés. D’abord beaucoup de 
ces espéces sont représentées par un exemplaire unique. Dans les autres cas, le 
type est celui qui figure en tete de l’énumération du Catalogue manuscript de 
d’Orbigny. Ce n’est que dans des cas tres rares qu'il peut subsister quelque doute. 
MM. Cox et Arkell parlent de la collection d’Orbigny sans la connaitre. Le 
jour ot ils voudront la consulter au Muséum, oti elle est a leur disposition, leur 
opinion deviendra certainment plus favorable. 

La proposition de nos confreres anglais et américains s’explique par une 
application du principe du moindre effort. Il est en effet plus facile de donner a 
des fossiles des noms nouveaux que de se livrer a de longues recherches pour les 
rapporter a des espéces déja connues. Non seulement une telle manicre de 
procéder n’est pas conforme a l’équité, mais encore elle a pour effet d’augmenter 
précisément les complications de nomenclature qu’on voudrait éviter. 


J. F. Pompeckj, Geologisch-Palaontologisches Institut und Museum 
der Universitat, Berlin, reports: 


besteht die Gefahr, dass auch andere alte Autoren, wie z. B. Baron v. 
Schlotheim ahnlichen Ausnahme Bedingungen unterworfen werden. 

Meiner Meinung nach miissen die d’Orbigny’schen strittigen Namen nach den 
Internationalen Regeln der Zoologischen Nomenklatur behandelt werden (Art. 
25, a and b). 

Ich kann daher dem Vorschlage der genannten Herren nicht zustimmen. 


Dr. Rudolph Richter, of the Senckenbergische Naturforschende 
Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a. M., expresses the following opinion : 


1. Hinsichtlich der Beschreibung, durch die ein Artname gultig wird, verlangt 
der Codex (Artikel 25) nur das Vorhandensein in der urspriinglichen Verdffent- 
lichung. Uber die Qualitat oder OQuantitdét der Beschreibung werden keine Vor- 
schriften gemacht. In demselben Sinn hat sich Opinion 52 ausgesprochen. 

Nach der lex lata besteht also kein Zweitfel tiber die Giiltigkeit auch solcher 
Namen in d’Orbigny’s “ Prodrome”’, deren Beschreibung so kurz ist wie in dem 
angeftthrten Beispiel von Lucina sarthacensis. 

2. Aber auch wenn man von der lex lata absieht und nur prtift, ob eine lex 
ferenda zweckmassig ware, kommt man zu demselben Schluss: 


IO SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Schon heute genugen die meisten Diagnosen der alteren Literatur nicht, um 
zu erkennen, welche Species der Autor gemeint hat. Zu ihrer Zeit hat eine 
Diagnose vielleicht vollig dazu ausgereicht, auch wenn sie nur aus zwei Worten 
bestand. Heute aber sind nicht nur viele Arten hinzugetreten, gegentiber denen 
damals noch nicht unterschieden zu werden brauchte, sondern vor allen Dingen, 
es sind neue Gesichtspunkte fur die Systematik massgebend geworden. In dieser 
Richtung wird die Entwicklung weitergehen. Nehmen wir an, dass die Zoologie 
die Artbegriffe nach Serum oder Blutgruppen abgrenzen wiirde oder die 
Palaontologie die Abtrennung ihrer Arten nur nach réntgenographisch erkenn- 
baren Strukturen vollziehen wiirde, so wiirden samtliche fritheren Diagnosen 
ungentigend werden. Wenn dann ein Chaos der Nomenklatur vermieden werden 
soll, so geht es nur auf den vom Codex verfolgten Wegen: Der Typus jeder Art 
ist nach dem neuen Gesichtspunkt zu untersuchen und neu zu beschreiben; aber an 
jedem Typus hangt der Artname unabanderlich. 

Wenn er auch heute so schlimm noch nicht ist, so muss man doch oft genug 
den Typus untersuchen, um die urspringliche Beschreibung richtig zu verstehen. 
Die Unbequemlichkeit, die die personliche Untersuchung der Typen n6tig macht, 
und die gelegentliche Anderung von Namen in Fallen, wo die Vorganger diese 
Pflicht versaumt haben, rechtfertigen aber nicht, das segensreiche Prinzip des 
Codex aufzugeben. 

Denn wenn man einem spateren Autor das Recht gabe, den Namen eines 
friiheren Autors dadurch ungutltig zu machen, indem er die urspriingliche 
Beschreibung als “ nicht ausreichend”’ anerkennt, so wiirde das die Subjektivitat 
quo ante codex wieder einfiihren und jede Stabilisierung der Nomenklatur 
unmoglich machen. 

Scuituss: Es wiirde unheilvolle Folgen haben, wenn man fiir d’Orbigny’s 
“ Prodrome” Ausnahmebestimmungen zulassen sollte. 


Dr. Wolfgang Adensamer, of the Naturhistorisches Museum, Vi- 
enna, reports: 


Es scheint mir sehr wiinschenswert die zahlreichen unzureichend beschriebenen 
Artnamen in d’Orbigny’s ‘“ Prodrome de Paléontologie Stratigraphique Uni- 
verselle” (3 Bde. Paris; 1850) zu eliminieren! Ich schliesse mich ganz der 
Ansicht der Herrn Kollegen Dr. L. R. Cox und Dr. W. J. Arkell an, dass die 
nicht oder unzureichend erlauterten Artnamen des d’Orbigny’schen ‘“ Pro- 
drome” in der Nomenklatur nicht berticksichtigt werden sollen. Am Schluss 
der Ausfithrungen von Cox und Arkell heist es: “ D’Orbigny’s new genera will 
not be valid if the only species referred to them are those suppressed as 
nomina nuda; ....”. Falls derartige Genera hinreichend beschrieben sind, 
halte ich es aber nicht flr zweckmassig sie auszuschalten! Hier miisste die 
Ansicht der jeweiligen Specialisten eingeholt werden. Auf alle Falle ergiebt sich 
nicht durch das Ausscheiden aller d’Orbigny’schen Artnamen eines d’Or- 
bigny’schen Genus das unberticksichtigt lassen dieses Genusnamens! Hier miisste 
eine eigene Bestimmung solche Genusnamen eliminieren. 


W. C. Mendenhall, Acting Director of the United States Geologi- 
cal Survey, submits the following: 


The proposal of Messrs. L. R. Cox and W. J. Arkell that the new specific 
names published by A. d’Orbigny in his “ Prodrome de Paléontologie Strati- 


no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 II 


graphique Universelle” (3 vols., Paris, 1850) shall be considered as nomina 
nuda and shall have no status in nomenclature unless they are accompanied by 
a reference to a description or figure published by some previous author has 
been considered by the paleozoologists of the Geological Survey who are now in 
Washington. A review of the individual opinions submitted indicates, with one 
exception, general agreement in the view that each of d’Orbigny’s new species 
published in his “ Prodrome” should stand on its own merits and that those 
that have been or can be identified should be accepted as valid. The Survey 
paleontologists who subscribe to this view are Charles Butts, C. Wythe Cooke, 
George H. Girty, W. C. Mansfield, John B. Reeside, Jr., P. V. Roundy, T. W. 
Stanton, and L. W. Stephenson. A dissenting view is expressed by Edwin Kirk, 
who states that he thinks that the proposition submitted by Messrs. Cox and 
Arkell is sound and he concurs in the stand they take. 

R. S. Bassler and Charles E. Resser, paleontologists of the United States 
National Museum, wish to be recorded as in favor of the majority opinion given 
above. 


Dr. Paul Bartsch, United States National Museum, submits the fol- 
lowing opinion : 


I cannot see how by any stretch of the imagination these names could be 
considered nomina nuda if they are accompanied by short descriptions. Further- 
more, these descriptions, it would appear to me, will be found probably in almost 
all instances recognizable when one has ample collections from the locality in 
question which, as the two authors state, is always cited. 

I have read, at times, through pages of descriptions, and have found it quite 
difficult to pull out the few things that differentiated the species or subspecies in 
question from another form closely allied to it, and I have frequently longed that 
the author would give just a few brief diagnostic characters. 

If specialists, working with the fauna in question, are unable from the short 
description and the name to fix upon a proper candidate for the name, then it 
seems to me that the species in question will have to be relegated to the unre- 
cognizable group and left there until some wise man is capable of rescuing it 
from that limbo. 


Dr. H. A. Pilsbry, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 
reports: 

The new names in d’Orbigny’s ‘‘ Prodrome” are not all so curtly defined as 
the examples given by Messrs. Cox and Arkell. Some are sufficiently defined by 
comparative characters for recognition and have been generally recognized. To 
reject all these names as nomina nuda would be inexact. Moreover, such an 
Opinion might open the question of adequacy of definition in enough other cases 
to swamp the Commission. 

I believe it the wiser course to leave new names in d’Orbigny’s “ Prodrome” 
to be dealt with individually by the paleontologists interested. 


These documents were submitted to Commissioner Bather, who 
has prepared the following discussion of the case: 

The application by Messrs. Cox and Arkell raises many difficult 
questions. This must be my excuse for a somewhat long discussion 
before proceeding to submit an Opinion. 


L2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


The expression nomen nudum does not occur in the Rules or Rec- 
ommendations. It may occur somewhere in the Opinions, but repeated 
search has failed to find it. In the absence of a definition by the Inter- 
national Commission, it seems necessary to take the literal meaning of 
the words, which corresponds with general usage, viz., a generic or 
specific name unaccompanied by any word of definition, diagnosis, or 
description, by any figure, or by any reference to previous definition, 
etc. or figure. A statement of locality and geological horizon does not 
of itself prevent a name from being a nomen nudum (Opinion 52). 
Reference to a type specimen or type specimens by the register or cata- 
logue number of a museum or collector does not of itself prevent a 
name from being a nomen nudum; a fortiori the mere existence of a 
type specimen has no bearing on the question (Opinion one). 

It is plain that the new names introduced by d’Orbigny in the 
‘“* Prodrome ” are not nomina nuda in the sense here defined, and no 
ruling of the International Commission can make them so. 

This conclusion has the support of Dr. Bartsch, but the other col- 
leagues do not seem to have dealt with the precise point. 

The application of Messrs. Cox and Arkell is not, however, to be 
dismissed because of a loose use of terms. They proceed to request 
that the “‘ Prodrome”’ names “ shall have no status in nomenclature.” 

The meaning of this phrase, as used by the applicants, is ambiguous. 
There are two kinds of status: 1. availability ; 2. validity. 

1. A specific name may be unavailable for various reasons, e. g., 
because it is pre-Linnean, unpublished in the sense of the Code, non- 
binominal, as well as the reasons already discussed. 

2. A specific name may be invalid for various reasons, and these 
reasons are of two kinds—a, nomenclatural ; b, zoological. 

a. Invalid because a preoccupied homonym, or because established 
on the same type specimen or other indication as a pre-existing 
species, i. e., a nomenclatural synonym. 

b. Invalid because held by the reviser(s) to belong to a species 
previously named, i. e., a zoological synonym. Invalid because the 
definition, figure, etc., are held by the reviser(s) to be incapable of 
interpretation, or, in so far as capable, then palpably incorrect and 
misleading. 

Now the International Commission is competent to pass an Opinion 
on all questions raised under 1 and 2a, because these are questions of 
pure nomenclature. It is not competent definitely to decide questions 
under 2b, because these involve zoological points, and these points are 
not so much of zoological fact as of subjective interpretation. The 
Commission is, however, competent to pass an Opinion on the nomen- 


no. 8 OPINIONS I24 TO 133 13 
clatural consequences of zoological assumptions. It is, for example, 
entitled to say to a zoologist; “If you honestly believe that Cidaris 
wissmannt Desor, 1846, is the same species as Cidaris spinosa Agas- 
siz, 1841, you must, other things being equal, adopt the name Cidaris 
spinosa.” 

Now it is on zoological grounds that Messrs. Cox and Arkell base 
their application. They say of the new names for previously unde- 
scribed species in the “ Prodrome ” “. ineach case... et briek 
comment is made on the species, but this... . is quite inadequate 
as a specific diagnosis.” This apparently means that the applicants, 
whose expert knowledge must be admitted, are unable to recognise the 
species from d’Orbigny’s sentences. They are entitled to their opinion, 
and justified in applying the Rules accordingly. The names will, so 
far as Messrs. Cox and Arkell are concerned, be invalid. But, as they 
point out, this will not stabilise the nomenclature, for other experts 
may hold a contrary opinion. Further, they say, the application of the 
Rules will result in upsetting a considerable number of names in cur- 
rent use. This must, it appears, be the result whatever view be held 
as to the validity of the names, and they claim that the only way to 
avoid both instability and confusion is to make the names nonavail- 
able. This can be effected only by suspension of the Rules. 

A specific instance of the difficulties may be given: Trigonia cas- 
siope d’Orb. (‘‘ Prodrome ”’, vol. 1, p. 308). 

Lycett (1863) took over this name without comment and described 
British specimens as 7. cassiope d’Orb. Others, however, have inter- 
preted d’Orbigny’s diagnosis differently. 

Reference to the original specimens shows that, in the words of 
M. Boule, ‘“ La collection d’Orbigny renferme sous ce nom des échan- 
tillons variés ; les uns sont indéterminables .... la plupart des autres 
sont des T. pullus Sow.” (1913, “ Types du Prodrome”’, p. 145.) 

It is open to Professor Boule to say that 7. cassiope d’Orb. cannot 
be recognised from the description, and so to regard the name as 
invalid ; or it is open to him to say that T. cassiope d’Orb. is a synonym 
of T. pullus Sow. But he continues; “ Lycett a décrit et figuré sous 
ce nom des échantillons qui doivent étre pris comme types.” Clearly 
they cannot be the types of T. cassiope d’Orb., for they were not 
part of d’Orbigny’s material. Is then the name 7. cassiope Lycett 
available? Certainly not if 7. cassiope d’Orb. is recognisable as a 
synonym of 7. pullus for then T. cassiope Lycett is a homonym of 
later date and is to be rejected under Article 35. 

But if we admit Professor Boule’s other conclusion that 7. cassiope 
d’Orb. is unrecognisable, then it cannot be said definitely to represent 


14 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS = VOL 78 


any species, whether the same as T. cassiope Lycett or not the same. 
Therefore Article 35, if taken strictly and literally, does not apply, and 
T. cassiope Lycett can be used. 

| Article 35.—A specific name is to be rejected as a homonym when 
it has previously been used for some other species or subspecies of the 
same genus. | 

This interpretation of Article 35 has never been discussed, but a cas- 
ual phrase in the discussion of Opinion 54 indicates that the opposite 
view would have been taken by the Commission in 1913. It is there 
said, “If Phoxinus Rafinesque, 1820, is unidentifiable it becomes a 
genus dubium, but the name preoccupies Phoxinus Agassiz, 1835.” 
That was not the question before the commission, so that the remark 
is an obiter dictum. Nevertheless, such an interpretation would have 
its value in extending the principle of Article 35 and so promoting 
stability. Thus, in the example chosen from the “ Prodrome”’, 7. cas- 
siope Vd’ Orb. may stand as a valid species or as a synonym of T. pullus, 
in which cases T. cassiope Lycett, if different, must have a new name. 
Or T. cassiope d’Orb. may be a species dubia, and still T. cassiope 
Lycett must have a new name. 

If, as claimed by the applicants, many other names of the “ Pro- 
drome ”’ have been similarly misinterpreted by subsequent writers and 
have come into general use for species that are not those intended by 
d’Orbigny, then there is a prima facie case for considering suspension 
of the Rules. It becomes necessary to discuss this proposal in more 
detail, and to consider the arguments adduced by the applicants and 
by the colleagues whose opinion has been asked. 

Let us take first the opinions unfavorable to the application : 

Professor Boule, as Keeper of the d’Orbigny Collection, claims 
foremost attention. He assumes that Messrs. Cox and Arkell are 
unacquainted with the d’Orbigny Collection. This is not the case: 
Mr. Arkell has examined some of the originals for himself and finds 
that in some instances more than one species is included under a single 
name. This observation probably explains the phrase “ supposed 
types’, to which M. Boule naturally objects. If, as M. Boule im- 
plies, the holotype is fixed by d’Orbigny’s MS. Catalogue, then the 
phrase is certainly unwarranted. It may, however, be recalled that 
De Loriol occasionally doubted whether the alleged type really was the 
type. 

The valuable work being done on the collection by M. Boule or 
under his direction does not seem to bear on the point at issue. The 
absence of figures from the ‘“‘ Prodrome” was not specially given 
by Cox and Arkell as a reason for rejecting d’Orbigny’s definitions ; 


no. 8 OPINIONS I24 TO 133 : 


tn 


and it was known to them, and so stated, that several of d’Orbigny’s 
specimens had been described and figured by later authors, notably by 
M. Boule. 

The opinion expressed by Mr. W. C. Mendenhall and many paleon- 
tologists of the United States Geological Survey and the United States 
National Museum is not perfectly clear. It says that those of d’Or- 
bigny’s species “ that have been or can be identified should be accepted 
as valid.” This may mean either identified on the basis of d’Orbigny’s 
diagnosis or identified by reference to the type material. The distinc- 
tion is important, as will appear further in the discussion of Dr. 
Richter’s letter. 

Dr. Richter is the only colleague who defends his position by rele- 
vant argument. 

1. He maintains that, according to Article 25, a species name is 
validated by a description. Now Article 25 does not say this. It says 
that a name cannot be valid unless “ accompanied by an indication, 
or a definition, or a description.” “ Ueber die Qualitat oder Quantitat 
der Beschreibung werden keine Vorschriften gemacht” (Richter). 
Opinion 52, cited by Richter, says “ It is not feasible for the Commis- 
sion to issue an opinion upon the question: What constitutes an ade- 
quate description?” 

All that follows from this 1s that a name accompanied by a descrip- 
tion should be considered, but whether the description is sufficient to 
validate the name is a question to be decided by the reviser. ‘‘ [t is ”’, to 
quote the discussion of Opinion 52, “entirely a zoological not a 
nomenclatorial question.” 

Opinion 52 has, however, a direct bearing on d’Orbigny’s “ Pro- 
drome ”’, because it states that the type locality “1s to be considered 
as an important element in determining the identity of species.” If in 
this we intercalate the words ‘‘ and/or type horizon ” we have a restate- 
ment of the principles on which d’Orbigny worked, as fully ex- 
plained in the introduction to the “ Prodrome.” 

2. Richter says very truly that a diagnosis which would be inade- 
quate to-day may have been adequate when it was drawn up. This is 
a view that I have urged repeatedly. But it does not follow that the 
diagnosis was adequate. 

On the assumption that a diagnosis even today may be inadequate, 
Richter concludes that examination of the holotype is essential. I 
should not like to say anything that would seem to suggest the con- 
trary. “An jeden Typus hangt der Artname unabanderlich”’, is a 
principle that cannot be urged too strongly; but it must not be taken 
to relieve authors from the necessity for drawing up adequate diagno- 


PA 
“ 


16 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL 773 


ses. Some diagnoses have been unintelligible to the author’s contem- 
poraries, and have been proved by subsequent reference to the type 
specimens to be misleading and even incorrect. 

The object of a definition or diagnosis is to furnish contemporary 
fellow-workers with the characters by which they can distinguish the 
species from others already known or diagnosed at the same time. It 
is not (as is a description) intended to furnish evidence by which the 
species may possibly be distinguished from all others hereafter to be 
discovered. It is when extension and precision of the original diagno- 
sis are necessitated by further discoveries that recourse to the holo- 
type is incumbent on the reviser. If contemporaries could not under- 
stand a definition apart from the holotype, it is surely plain that the 
definition was inadequate from the outset. Since there always was 
and must be type material of some kind, the logical consequence of 
inclusion of the helotype itself within the definition would be to de- 
prive the rest of the definition of any significance. One need say no 
more than: “A charming species, rather large, Holotype: Nat. Mus. 
Ruritaniae, No. X999.” 

Dr. Richter supports his thesis by an appeal to the “ subjectivity ” 
involved in any interpretation of the diagnosis. A bad diagnosis 
undoubtedly opens the door to subjectivity ; but a diagnosis is good in 
so far as it eliminates subjectivity. After all there may be as much 
subjectivity in the interpretation of a holotype (especially if it be an 
obscure fossil) as in the reading of a diagnosis. (See next Section, 
argument No. 6.) 

The arguments in favor of the proposal are contained to some ex- 
tent in the original application (C. and A.), but still more in letters 
subsequently received from Mr. Cox (C.) and Mr. Arkell (A.). 
Phey-are: 

t. The comments of d’Orbigny are inadequate as specific diagnoses 
(CGoandsA.): 

2. D’Orbigny’s species have been misinterpreted by later authors, 
or have been ignored and described under other names (C. and A.). 

3. The names, whether d’Orbigny’s or new, used by later authors 
are familiar and current, and it would breed confusion to disturb them 
(C. and A. and A., who gives many examples). 

4. D’Orbigny was a competent describer, not to be compared with 
writers 50 yeats before him, and he himself says that it is not his 
intention to describe the new species in the “ Prodrome”’; he would 
have described them later in the “ Paléontologie Francaise” (C.). 

5. Reference to a type specimen should not be a permissible substi- 
tute for an intelligible definition (C.). 


‘ 


No. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 17 

6. To retain or reject a species according as the type specimen is 
considered satisfactory or not is to introduce personal opinion (A.). 

7. In some cases, as admitted by Boule, and as testified by Arkell, 
d’Orbigny’s type specimens are not satisfactory. 

8. D’Orbigny’s names were often fantastic and given without 
thought. 

On the preceding arguments, the following comments may be made: 

1, 2, and 4. Undoubtedly d’Orbigny did not intend his remarks as 
“ descriptions,” but it is not so sure that he did not intend them as 
provisional diagnoses, sufficiently clear to enable the species to b¢ 
identified. Whatever his intentions may have been, the fact is that he 
fulfilled the requirements of the Code. 

The question of confusion does not necessarily depend on the inade- 
“ Prodrome ” diagnoses; still the applicants make that 
so large a part of their argument that the justice of the charge must be 
considered. It has been pointed out that the adequacy of a definition 
must be decided with regard to the knowledge of the time, and the 
applicants attempt to show that contemporaries could not understand 
the ‘‘ Prodrome ”’ diagnoses. Their examples are all drawn from the 
Oolitic Mollusca and from Morris and Lycett. Even were they justi- 
fied in this regard, it does not follow that other groups and other 
specialists were in similar case. I have therefore looked into some of 


quacy of the 


the echinoderm species, as well as into the molluscan. 

First, it does not appear what steps Morris and Lycett took to 
understand the “ 
duction on horizon and locality, and it has already been decided by the 
Commission that such details when given are to be taken into account. 
Did Morris and Lycett attempt this? In nearly every case where they 
adopt one of d’Orbigny’s new names, they do so without comment ; 
only under Opis pulchella d’Orb. do they indicate that they have made 
the necessary comparison, and they say: “ The experience derived 
from a multitude of examples leaves no room to doubt that 
d’Orbigny has correctly indicated its distinctive characters in the brief 


Prodrome.” D’Orbigny lays great stress in his intro- 


sentence above quoted.” 

Morris and Lycett took over d’Orbigny’s names in enough instances 
to show that they did not regard his diagnoses as inadequate ; they 
did not, so far as I can see, express any opinion on the matter. There 
is no evidence, except that just quoted, that they ever troubled to 
examine specimens from the type locality. 

The evidence bearing on the new echinoderm species of the ** Pro- 
drome” is far more satisfactory. 


18 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLES 


For the echinoids we have Desor’s “ Synopsis”, which appeared 
within a few years and obviously considered d’Orbigny’s names. Some 
were accepted without comment, some were accepted on evidence of 
specimens, some were adversely criticised, and some were passed 
over in silence presumably as inadequately defined. Thus: Diadema 
subcomplanatum d’Orb., p. 319, *416, is accepted. Wright also ac- 
cepts this and mentions specimens. Hemicidaris luciensis d’Orb., 
p. 320, *422 is accepted after examination of specimens from Luc. 
Wright also accepted this. Diadema calloviensis d’Orb., p. 346, is ac- 
cepted, but apparently on the evidence of a paratype. Diadema Jobae 
d’Orb., p. 290, *513. ‘‘ Espéce voisine du D. subangulare, mais avec 
les tubercules intermédiaires tout autrement disposés’’. Desor (“ Sy- 
nopsis””, p. 17) says with justice ‘“ la diagnose ci-dessus ne suffit pas 
pour identifier une espéce.”’ Finally Cidaris jarbus, C. jasius, and 
C. itys d’Orb., p. 222, are not mentioned in the “ Synopsis’, perhaps 
because they were based only on radioles; the definitions seem to me 
adequate. Holectypus corallinus d’Orb, vol. 2, p. 26, was accepted by 
Desor and by Cotteau (1854). Cotteau also (1854) found no diff- 
culty in identifying d’Orbigny’s Dysaster suprajurensts in the field, 
although he did not regard it as distinct. 

Turning to the Crinoidea we find De Loriol in “ Paléontologie 
Francaise ”’ exercising a similar discrimination, accepting or rejecting. 
His approach to the “ Prodrome”’ differs from that of the echinoid 
specialists mentioned because he had the type material before him. He 
refrains none-the-less from accepting a name merely because he can 
identify the holotype. He accepts Cyclocrinus precatorius (vol. 1, 
p. 320) and Millericrinus rotiformis (vol 1, p. 346) without criti- 
cising d’Orbigny’s definitions. Of Miullericrinus bacheliert (vol. 1, 
p. 346) he says: “la diagnose n’est pas compréhensible ’’, and the 
material in the d’Orbigny Collection does not enable him to interpret 
the species. There are seven specimens in the collection labelled Mzl- 
lericrinus pulchellus from the type locality “ dont quatre seulement 
correspondent a la description du Prodrome” (vol. 1, p. 346), from 
which statement one infers that the holotype is not always so easily 
ascertained as Professor Boule implies. 

Several species are described by De Loriol from the type material 
and he adopts d’Orbigny’s names, although he either asserts or implies 
that the “ Prodrome ” definition was inadequate or misleading. See 
for instance his remarks on Pentacrinus oceani, P. marcousanus, Mil- 
lericrinus convexus, and Pentacrinus buvignieri, which last he makes 
a synonym of P. nicoleti Desor, solely on the evidence of types of both 


no. 8 OPINIONS I24 TO 133 19 


authors. In such cases it seems to me that the names should be quoted 
as “ de Loriol ex d’Orb.”, for there is nothing in Article 35 to prevent 
a name being used for the same species. 

In the following instances De Loriol’s remarks may be quoted more 
fully because they bear directly on the point at issue. 

“Prodrome”, vol. I, p. 241, *248 Pentacrinus liasinus d’Orb., 1847. Espéce 


voisine du pentangularis, mais plus grele encore et plus uniformément lisse 
[3 locc. are given]. 


There is no such name as P. pentangularis in d’Orbigny ; perhaps 
P. pentagonalis is meant. If so, d’Orbigny is comparing Liassic and 
Oxfordian, a procedure which he criticises in the Introduction. 
De Loriol, on examining the syntypes of P. liasinus, rejects the name, 
as wellas P. cylindricus Desor nom. nud., in favor of the later P. sub- 
teroides Quenstedt, because the latter is “le seul réellement connu 
dans la science, puisque le premier ne l’est que par une simple men- 
tion, et le second par une phrase du ‘ Prodrome,’ qui n’est pas meme 
exact.” 


‘ ’ 5 . . ; 
“Prodrome”, vol. 1, p. 321, *?433 Pentacrinus nodotianus d’Orb., 1847. 
Espéce voisine du P. briareus, mais ayant ses verticilles moins comprimés. 


De Loriol (‘ Paléontologie Francaise ’’, 420 sqq.) explains how 
he was quite at a loss to interpret this until he discovered the type, 
which belonged to P. dargniesi Terquem and Jourdy, 1869. His con- 
cluding remarks put the case clearly : 

Maintenant quel nom lui donner? Celui de d’Orbigny a la priorité d’années, 
mais, en vérité, il est impossible de prétendre que la simple mention du 
“Prodrome”, que j’ai citée, et qui, encore, n’est pas exacte, soit suffisante pour 
dire que l’espéce a été publiée par d’Orbigny antérieurement a MM. Terquem et 
Jourdy. Ce sont ces derniers qui, par une description et de bonnes figures, ont 
réellement fait connaitre l’espéce, dont personne, d’apres la phrase de d’Orbigny, 
ne pouvait avoir la moindre idée, sauf que c’était un Extracrinus. Je crois donc 
que le nom de P. nodotianus doit étre définitivement abandonné, parce qu'il était 
impossible de savoir quelle espéce il représentait, et que, in réalité, avant MM. 
Terquem et Jourdy, l’espéce n’avait pas été publice. 


With these remarks of De Loriol I entirely agree. 

To sum up these enquiries into the adequacy of the “ Prodrome ” 
diagnoses.—It appears that, while some are clearly inadequate, others 
have been found adequate by specialists who took all the facts into 
consideration. In this respect the “ Prodrome ” does not seem to me 
worse than many works which have always been accepted. Among 
relevant facts I do not include the existence of a type specimen ; at the 
same time it may be pointed out that, although d’Orbigny indicates by 
an asterisk the existence of specimens in his collection, he nowhere 


20 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


fixes on any specimen or specimens as holotype or syntypes. In fixing 
the holotype it is no doubt advisable to regard the locality and, if the 
specimens therefrom are individually listed, to select the first on the 
list as holotype. The holotype as thus fixed may confirm the inter- 
pretation of the diagnosis, or, as Professor Boule and others have 
shown, it may be equally unintelligible ; or again, the diagnosis may be 
quite clear and may correspond with specimens from the type locality 
although the lectotype happens to be obscure. 

The adequacy of the “ Prodrome ” diagnoses is not to be judged by 
their length, for a single epithet may be sufficient. Nor can the names 
employed have any bearing on the question, especially as d’Orbigny 
(Introduction, § 66) insists that names which have no meaning are 
often the best. 

Thus examination of the “ Prodrome”’ leads to the conclusion that 
it is possible to consider each of the new species on its own merits and 
to accept as valid those that have been or can be identified. 

The plea of the applicants is that such a course would lead to con- 
fusion, and Mr. Arkell in his letter gives a respectable number of 
instances in which familiar names would have to go. It does not 
appear that there is or would be any particular difficulty in echino- 
derms. My colleagues in the Geological Department of the British 
Museum take essentially the same view in regard to corals, Polyzoa, 
and brachiopods. 

In these circumstances it seems out of the question for the Commis- 
sion to sweep away all the names proposed for new species in the 
‘““Prodrome.” Itis by no means certain that such action would not pro- 
duce a converse state of confusion in some groups. 

The chief difficulty, or at any rate the most annoying change in- 
volved by following the Rules, seems to be that exemplified by 
Trigonia cassiope and Myoconcha actaeon. Here it is generally ad- 
mitted that d’Orbigny’s diagnoses are inadequate (even the type speci- 
mens do not elucidate them). Yet it seems to be thought necessary to 
reject the 7. cassiope and M. actaeon of Morris and Lycett as homo- 
nyms of d’Orbigny’s species. This conclusion does not appear to be 
necessitated by the rules. I have already maintained that a name can- 
not be a homonym when given to the same species. But can it be said 
(in the words of Article 35) that 7. cassiope d’Orb. was used for 
some other species than T. cassiope M. and L.? Ex hypothesi it can- 
not. If it were proved that T. cassiope d’Orb. did represent a distinct 
species, then that name would stand, but it has not been proved, and, 
one gathers, cannot be proved. Morris and Lycett were not founding 


no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 21 
a new species; they believed that their specimens belonged to d’Or- 
bigny’s species. If the contrary cannot be proved, surely the name may 
be left. 

Many of the difficulties arising out of the “ Prodrome” and simi- 
lar works would be largely smoothed away if the Commission could 
agree to the following: 

A name that rests on a diagnosis unintelligible in itself and not 
explained by the type material, shall not prevent the use of the same 
name for a species from the same locality and horizon, when subse- 
quently diagnosed in proper form. 

To meet the undoubted difficulties I have endeavored to frame an 
Opinion that would be of general application, but without success. I 
therefore submit the following for the approval of the Commission. 

O pinion.—There are no grounds for treating d’Orbigny’s “ Pro- 
drome” differently from other works containing preliminary diag- 
noses. In all such cases the decision whether a diagnosis is adequate 
or no must be made by the systematist and not by the Commission. 

If the diagnosis is held to be adequate, the ordinary rules regarding 
priority and homonyms apply. 

If the diagnosis is held to be inadequate, the publication of the name 
will not prevent any author from subsequent description and estab- 
lishment under the same name of the same species (as recognised from 
the holotype, if any); further, if the holotype be wanting or unde- 
cipherable, subsequent description and establishment under the same 
name of a species from the same locality and horizon is permissible. 
In both these cases the date for purposes of priority shall be the later 
date, and if the later author (say Brown) is not the same as the 
earlier author (say Green) then the name shall be quoted as “ Brown 
ex Green”. If, however, the holotype attached from the beginning 
to the earlier use of the name with inadequate diagnosis be clearly 
of a different species from the holotype attached to the later use, 
then the later use is a homonym as defined by Article 35 and is to be 
rejected. 

On the question of generic names, also raised by the applicants, 
Dr. Adensamer considers that a genus if properly diagnosed will be 
valid although the species referred to it may be suppressed as nomiuna 
nuda. 

This seems rather a contradiction in terms. 

If there is only one species, the diagnostic features of the genus, 
which ex hypothesi are adequate, will also distinguish the species. If 
neither they nor the characters of the species are adequate, then both 
genus and species must fall. (Cf. Opinion 43. ) 


22 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


If there be more than one species, one of them either was, or must 
now be, selected as genholotype. That will then be distinguished from 
all species previously known by the diagnostic characters of the genus. 
The names of the remaining species may be treated as synonyms of 
the genholotype, or as nomina nuda. 

Opinion prepared by Bather. 

Opinion concurred in by fourteen (14) Commissioners: Bather, 
Cabrera, Dabbene, Handlirsch, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan (K.), Pel- 
legrin, Richter, Silvestri, Steyneger, Stephenson, Stiles, Stone. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, five (5) Commissioners: Apstein, Bolivar, Chapman, 
erdan (CDOS: )5 Warren. 

Stone adds: 


I agree with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Opinion but paragraph 3 is so far 
reaching that it should be definitely embodied in the Rules rather than be 
considered in an Opinion on a single case. 

I agree that a genus based upon nomina nuda has no standing. 


Richter adds: 


Ich stimme der Opinion zu, jedoch mit Ausnahme des Absatzes 3, dem ich 
nachdriicklich widerspreche. “If the diagnosis is held to be inadequate”’, ist 
eine Frage, die mehr als andere der Subjektivitat unterworfen ist. Es ist daher 
nicht nur eine unnotige Neuerung, sondern sogar ein gefahrlicher Anreiz, einem 
Autor zu erlauben, seine Autorschaft mit einem alteren Namen zu verbinden, 
weil dessen urspriingliche Diagnose “nicht ausreichend” sei. Der bisher in 
Zoologie und Palaozoologie tibliche Gebrauch, Autorschaft und Prioritatsdatum 
bei der urspriinglichen Veroffentlichung zu belassen und den Autor der spateren 
Diagnose nur in zweiter Linie zu nennen, hat seine guten Grtinde und sollte 
nich geandert werden. Beispiel: X-us albus Green, 1900; emend. Brown 1920. 
Denn: lasst Green’s Diagnose die Moglichkeit zu, dass albus Brown damit 
identisch ist, so besteht kein Grund, diese Identitat zu bezweifeln. Solange diese 
Identitat aber nicht bezweifelt wird, ist albus Brown sowohl als Homonym wie 
als Synonym von albus Green zu betrachten. 

Ich bin mit einem Absatz der Opinion gar nicht einverstanden, namlich mit 
der Erlaubnis, zu zitieren “ Brown ex Green’’, wobei das Datum der Prioritat 
dem spateren Autor zugesprochen werden soll. Ich wtirde es sehr begriissen, 
wenn dieser Absatz aus der Opinion entfernt werden konnte. Im wubrigen ist 
Bather’s Discussion von wundervoller Klarheit. Aber in jenem Satz scheint mir 
die Commission nicht nach der Konsequenz ihrer eigenen Grundsatze zu handeln. 


Stiles adds: 


It would be well to consider whether the difference of opinion as expressed 
by Bather and by Richter is not settled by Art. 24 concerning division and 
restriction of a species. 





no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 22 


OPINION 127 


SUSPENSION OF RULES FOR Lepidocyclina GUMBEL, 1868, TYPE 
Nummutlites mantelli 


SUMMARY.—Complying with expert advice from specialists in the group 
involved, the Commission herewith Suspends the Rules and places Lepidocyclina 
Giimbel, 1868, type Nummulites mantelli, in the Official List of Generic Names, 
with Cyclosiphon Ehrenberg, 1856, type Numuinulites mantelli, as objective 
synonym. The consultants agree, almost unanimously, that to apply the Rules 
in this case would produce greater confusion than uniformity. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Commissioner Chapman of Melbourne, Aus- 
tralia, recommends that the Rules be suspended in the case of Lepi- 
docyclina, 1868, vs. Cyclosiphon, 1856. 

Discussion.—According to the evidence verified by the Secretary 
the nomenclatorial premises in the case of Cyclosiphon, 1856, versus 
Lepidocyclina, 1868, are very clear. 

Cyclosiphon Ehrenberg, 1856, Ueber den Grundsand, K. Akad. 
Wiss., Berlin Abhandl., fur 1855, p. 145, is monotypic, being based 
solely upon Nummulites mantelli. 

Lepidocyclina Gumbel, 1868, Beitrage zur Foraminiferenfauna der 
nordalpinen Eocangebilde, K. bay. Akad. Wiss., m.-p., Cl. Bd. 10, 





no. 2, pp. 689 and 717, was originally published as a subgenus of 
Orbitoides and contained three species, i. e., L. mantelli Morton, 
L. dilatata Michelotti, and L. burdigalensis Giimbel. No type species 
was designated, indicated or intimated, directly or indirectly. 

Douvillé, 1898, Bull. Soc. Géol. France, ser. 3, vol. 26, p. 594, defi- 
nitely designated Numanulites mantelli as genotype, as correctly stated 
by Galloway, 1928, Journ. Paleontol., vol. 2, p. 65, and as accepted 
by Vaughan, 1929, p. 29. 

As both generic names are based upon the same type species they 
are objective synonyms regardless of any subjective interpretation 
in respect to their structure (we name objects, not our conception of 
those objects). On this account Galloway, 1928, pp. 40-64, logically 
accepted Cyclosiphon in preference to Lepidocyclina. 

The Commission is now requested to suspend the rules and to vaii- 
date Lepidocyclina in place of Cyclosiphon. 

On account of the general adoption of Lepidocyclina and its im- 
portance in paleontology the Secretary has referred this case to various 


24 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


specialists for expression of opinion, and in reply has received the 
following : 
J. A. Cushman reports: 


I have little to add to the debate on these two names [Lepidocyclina and 
Cyclosiphon]. I should try to be consistent and use Cyclosiphon, but as noted 
in Vaughan’s paper here appended, it is a very great doubt as to what was 
meant by Ehrenberg, and his types are certainly not at all helpful. On account 
of the very great uncertainty, I would advocate the retention of the name 
Lepidocyclina in this case. 

When in Berlin in 1927 I examined the material of Cyclosiphon in the Ehren- 
berg collection there and found it to consist of various things, mostly glauconitic 
casts, a considerable portion of which did not even belong to the family 
Orbitoididae. Of the material which could be referred to an orbitoid none was 
of sufficient completeness even to be specifically identifiable. 

Evidently Ehrenberg from his description of Cyclosiphon had not seen the 
Nummulites mantelli which he referred to as his generic description would 
exclude that species from the genus Cyclosiphon. 

It seems to me very clear from the evidence that no good purpose would result 
from trying to revive the name Cyclosiphon with all the attendent confusion that 
would necessarily arise. I, therefore, urge most strongly the retention of the 
name Lepidocyclina with Nummulites mantelli as the type species of both the 
genus and the typical subgenus. 


T. W. Vaughan, “A Note on the Names Cyclosiphon Ehrenberg, 
1856, and Lepidocyclina Gumbel, 1868”, Journ. Paleontol., vol. 3, 
no. 1, March 1929, pp. 28-29, reviews the case of Lepidocyclina and 
concludes that : 


Because of confusion surrounding Cyclosiphon, it appears to me undesirable, 
even unfortunate, to revive that name, and it seems that the use of the name 
Lepidocyclina, with Nummulites mantelli as the type-species of both the genus 
and the typical subgenus, should be continued. 


Letter from Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the U. S. Geo- 
logical Survey, Washington, D. C.: 


The proposition for suspension of the Rules in zoological nomenclature for the 
purpose of retaining the two generic names Lepidocyclina and Nummulites has 
been considered by all of the Geological Survey paleontologists now in Wash- 
ington whose work involves the use of zoological names. While the workers of 
this group subscribe to the rule of priority for general use they are unanimous 
in their recommendation that the rule should be suspended in its application to 
the two names above mentioned so that they may be continued in use. 


The signed statements of the several paleontologists are attached. 
Letters from Survey paleontologists : 
In the case of a generic name which has been in long and general usage there 


seems nothing to be lost and much to be gained by retaining it, even though some 
one may discover that an older, practically unknown name has priority over it. 





No. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 


bo 


cr 


I therefore recommend that Niummulites and Lepidocyclina be given validity by 
the International Commission. I feel, however, that exceptions should be made 
only in extreme cases such as the ones here presented. 

Signed: L. W. Stephenson. 

“T concur in the above statement.” T. W. Stanton. 

“Concur.” Edwin Kirk, C. Wythe Cooke, W. C. Mansfield, Chas. 
Butts. 

“ Agreed, both as to making exceptions only in extreme cases and as 
applied here to Nummutlites and Lepidocyclina.” George H. Girty. 

I believe that the substitution of Camerina, almost entirely unused and 
unknown, for Nummulites, extensively used for over a century, is a useless bit of 
hair-splitting legal procedure. It will lead to more confusion than clarity. Much 
the same is true with respect to Cyclosiphon and Lepidocyclina. I can see no 
profit whatever in going back into the literature of the dim past to dig up names 
that have only the legal show of validity and using them to replace widely used 
and well understood terms [irrelevant personal opinion-C. W. S.]. Let us keep 
Nummulites and Lepidocyclina. 

Signed: John B. Reeside, Jr., Jan. 25, 10920. 

“T agree with the above statement.” P. V. Roundy, Feb. 5, 1920. 
“ Amen and again Amen.” Chas. Butts. 

In cases in which the confusion arising from the resurrection of an older name 
is obviously to the disadvantage of the science [relevant testimony-C. W. S.], 
especially as in the cases under consideration in which no good save the restora- 
tion of questionably earned rights to Ehrenberg and Bruguiére appear to offset 
the ill it would do the science, I am opposed to replacing a well known and 
generally used name by an older one that never attained common usage. There- 
fore I am in favor of retaining Lepidocyclina and Niumimutlites. 

Signed: E. O. Ulrich, Jan. 20, 1920. 


Letter from Edward Willard Berry, of the Johns Hopkins Uni- 
versity, baltimore, U.S. Ay: 


I understand that there is pending before the International Commission on 
Zoological Nomenclature the decision whether to retain the generic use of 
Nummulites and Lepidocyclina. I wish to go on record as being in favor of 
retaining these two genera in the Classification. 


The following are expressions of opinion from Australian 
specialists : 
Prof. Walter Howchin, F. G. S.: 


I am heartily in accord with you for the retention of the generic names 
Nummulites and Lepidocyclina. These names have become so thoroughly in- 
corporated in the literature of the Foraminifera that their substitution would 
involve serious inconvenience and confusion, priority notwithstanding. I hope 
that the exceptions you suggest will be agreed to. 


MWe decbarr. Fo ks Misa 


I think that the genera Nammualites Lamarck and Lepidocyclina Gumbel should 
be retained as nomina conservanda in place of the earlier Camerina Bruguiere and 
Cyclosiphon Ehrenberg. 


26 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


I am generally opposed to the Suspension of the Rules, but unlike the other 
foraminifera genera which have been superseded recently, Lepidocyclina and 
Nummulites have been much used in general geological literature and a change 
to the older genera would certainly lead to much confusion which it is desirable 
to avoid. 


Robert A. Keble, F. G. S. Paleontologist : 


I am in thorough agreement with the retention of Nummulites and Lepi- 
docyclina. By doing so the literature becomes intelligible at a glance and un- 
confused by the rules of nomenclature. Expressed in terms of time saved, such 
[word omitted] has a true economic value; confusion and uncertainty must 
obviously accompany a reversion to the strict order of priority. 

There remains, then, the question of sentiment. Bruguiére and Ehrenberg, the 
aggrieved authorities, have long passed away, but there is no question of 
depriving them of their priority. These unselfish pioneers would not have con- 
doned for a moment the waste of time and confusion that would ensue in 
establishing their presumed right of priority. 


Miss Irene Crespin, Paleontologist : 


As far as the two genera, Nummulites and Lepidocyclina, are concerned, I 
would emphatically support the retention of these names by a suspension of the 
Rules. 


A. C. Collins, student of the Victorian Tertiary Foraminifera: 


I should like to express my personal opinion that the generic names 
Lepidocyclina Giimbel and Nuwmmulites Lamarck should be retained in preference 
to earlier names. As these names are so widely used in stratigraphic references, 
their alteration would, I think, create confusion amongst nonspecialists in the 
group, and I see no useful purpose to be served [in these cases] by the rigid 
application of the rules of nomenclature. 


Frederick A. Singleton, M. Sc.: 


My formal opinion concerning Nummulites and Lepidocyclina is that both 
should be placed on the official list of nomina conservanda, and it is impossible 
to reject one and not the other, Cyclosiphon having stronger claims than 
Camerina. 


The case was submitted to the Commission for informal ballot. 
The resulting vote stood six (6) for Suspension, four (4) for enforce- 
ment of the Rules. 

With his informal [affirmative] vote Commissioner Bather trans- 
mits the note : 


Professor A. Morley Davies, Mr. Heron-Allen, Dr. H. Dighton Thomas, and 
Mr. A. Wrigley advocate the suspension of the Rules in favor of Lepidocyclina. 
Mr. C. P. Chatwin, on the contrary side, writes: ‘“ The question is: do we know 
what Ehrenberg meant by ‘= Nummulites mantelli’? In my opinion we do.” 
In my opinion, from the evidence of Vaughan and Cushman, we do not. That 
is just the point in dispute. I may remark that C. D. Sherborn, 18093, ‘“ Index 


No. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 a 


to Foraminifera”, quotes “ Cyclosiphon? Ehrenberg., Abhandl. K. Akad. Wiss. 
Berlin, 1855, p. 168”, and adds “ Orbitoides fragment, referred elsewhere by 
Ehrenberg to O. mantelli.”’ Obviously this high authority on foraminifera, bibli- 
ography, and nomenclature hesitated to accept Cyclosiphon. 

From a strictly nomenclatural standpoint I agree with the Secretary that this 
uncertainty has no bearing on the incidence of the Rules; but this only shows 
how ridiculous adherence to the letter of the law may sometimes be. 

It is not clear to me what confusion would be caused by substituting Cyclo- 
siphon for Lepidocyclina, but I gather that the latter name has long been in 
general use, whereas no one seems to have used Cyclosiphon between Ehrenberg 
(1856) and Galloway (1928). It is not in the Nomenclators of Bronn, Scudder, 
or Waterhouse. 


With his informal [negative] vote Commissioner Stone sends the 
statement : 

The privilege of asking for a Suspension of the Rules is in danger of being 
abused. I should advocate it on/y in cases (1) that are so involved that various 
interpretations are possible or (2) that seriously affect fields and activities outside 


of pure zoological nomenclature. With too much leniency our whole system 
will become utterly inconsistent. 


The Secretary has corresponded with the following persons, also, 
who are interested in this case and who approve of a Suspension of 
the Rules. Most of these workers have read the Summary of this 
Opinion and have subscribed to it : 

R. Wright Barker, Tampico, Mexico; W. S. Cole, Columbus, O.; J. A. 
Cushman, Sharon, Mass.; A. M. Davies, London; S. Hanzawa, Sendai, Japan: 
L. G. Heubest, Washington, D. C.; H. K. Hodson, Caripito, Mexico; W. L. F. 
Nuttall, Cambridge, England; D. K. Palmer, Matanzas, Cuba; H. J. Plummer, 
Austin, Tex.; G. M. Ponton, Tallahassee, Fla.; L. Ritter, Utrecht, Holland; 
A. Silvestri, Milan, Italy; G. Stefanini, Pisa, Italy; J. H. F. Umbgrove, Delft, 
Holland; I. M. van der Vlerk, Leiden, Holland; G. L. Whipple, Puerto Mexico, 
Mexico; H.Yabe, Sendai, Japan. 


The Secretary invites attention to the facts: (1) that the specialists 
consulted are agreed upon the advisability of Suspension in this case ; 
(2) the case involves geological record, 1. e., a coordinate branch of 
science, and zoologists should be doubly conservative in arriving at 
conclusions on cases of this type which may have important economic 
bearings and which have become thoroughly established in paleonto- 
logical and geological literature. 

In view of the foregoing data the Secretary recommends that the 
Summary given above be adopted as the Opinion of the Commission. 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Cabrera, Chapman, Fantham, Horvath, Ishikawa, Jordan, Pellegrin, 
Silvestri, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone, Peters. 


28 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL 75 


Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting: Bolivar, Handlirsch, Richter. 

Note: In the case of Nummutlites eight (8) Commissioners (Ap- 
stein, Bather, Chapman, Horvath, Ishikawa, Pellegrin, Silvestri, and 
Stiles) voted for suspension ; four (4) Commissioners (Cabrera, Jor- 
dan, Stephenson, and Stone) voted against suspension; not voting, 
five (5) Commissioners (Bolivar, Handlirsch, Richter, Stejneger, and 
Warren). Accordingly this case is tabled until the next meeting of 
the Commission. 





No. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 29 


OPINION 128 
Nycteribia, 1796, PUPIPARA, AND Spinturiix, 1820, ACARINE 


SUMMARY.—Under Suspension of the Rules Nycteribia Latreille, 1796, with 
pedicularia Latreille, 1805, as type, and Spinturnix von Heyden, 1826, with 
myott Kolenati, 1856, as type, are hereby placed in the Official List of Generic 
Names. 

The specific name vespertilionis of all authors is hereby invalidated for the 
following generic names: Acarus, Acrocholidia, Celeripes, Dermanyssus, Dip- 
lostaspis, Gamasus, Hippobosca, Ichoronyssus, Liponyssus, Listropoda, Megis- 
topoda, Nycteribia, Pediculus, Penicillidia, Periglischrus, Phthiridium, Pteroptus, 
Sarcoptes, Spinturnix, Strebla, on the ground that the application of the Rules 
would produce greater confusion than uniformity. 


PRESENTATION OF CASE.—Prof. J. M. Aldrich, United States Na- 
tional Museum, has submitted the following case for consideration : 


Latreille proposed the genus Nycteribia in ‘‘ Précis des caractéres génériques 
des Insectes”’, 1796, p. 176, mentioning only Pediculus vespertilionis Linn. In 
his “ Histoire naturelle des Crustacés et des Insectes ”, vol. 14, p. 403, 1805, he 
again briefly describes the genus, and gives a partial description of Nycteribia 
pedicularia, new species, which he figures on pl. 112, fig. 14. He places Pediculus 
vespertilonis L. under pedicularia, apparently as a synonym. 

Now it is a fact mentioned by Speiser, “ Ueber die Nycteribiiden ”, Konigsberg, 
1901, p. 2, that Pediculus vespertilionis L., 1758, is an acarid, and not a nycteribiid 
in the usual sense of the term. 

Latreille in 1796 evidently did not know what vespertilionis L. was, since his 
reference to long tarsi indicates a nycteribiid in the usual sense. His second 
reference, however, is accompanied by a figure which makes the intention clear. 

Up to the present time Nycteribia has universally been accepted as a genus of 
Diptera, suborder Pupipara, and there has been no attempt within a hundred 
years, as far as I know, to “correct” the nomenclature by transferring the genus 
to the Acarini. Hence no confusion will arise if the Commission of Nomencla- 
ture shall decide upon a Suspension of the Rules in this case, and shall designate 
vespertilionis Latr. 1796 (non Linn.; pedicularia Latr. 1805) as type ot 
Nycteribia. I request that this be done. 


Discussion.—This is probably the most confused case of nomen- 
clature which has ever been submitted to the Commission for study 
and Opinion, and as such it calls for radical action in order to prevent 
further confusion. 

At the request of the Secretary and under his personal supervision 
this case has been very carefully studied by one of his assistants, Ben- 
jamin J. Collins, M.S., who has summarized the results of his study 
in Bulletin 155, National Institute of Health, United States Public 


30 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLE 73 


Health Service, pp. 743-765, figs. I-11, 1931. This printed article, a 
copy of which is mailed to each Commissioner, is hereby included as 
a portion of the Discussion. 

The chief points at issue are the following : 

1. Pediculus vespertilionis Linn., 1758a, 611, was described as a 
hexapod, namely, genus Pediculus, but the most definite part of the 
original is the inclusion of a bibliographic citation of an illustration 
or figure of the “ Fledermauss-Lauss ” of Frisch, 1728; this illustra- 
tion is clearly that of an octopod. It seems highly probable that Lin- 
naeus actually had in mind a hexapod in addition to. this octopod of 
Frisch, and for purposes of nomenclatorial argument this is adopted as 
premise. 

2. Scopoli, 1763, interpreted Pediculus vespertilionis as an octopod 
and transferred the species to Acarus. This view was adopted by 
Linnaeus, 1767. 

3. Latreille, 1796, proposed a hexapod genus Nycteribia, with mono- 
type “ Acarus vespertilionis Linn. Fab. Pediculus Linn.” In 1805 
Latreille proposed for Nycteribia vespertilionis a new specific name, 
Nyctertbia pedicularia, thus accepting the premise that Latreille’s 1796 
specimens of Nycteribia belonged to the Insecta, sensu restricto. The 
species pedicularia 1s objective synonym of the hexapod vespertilionis 
as of Latreille, 1796. 

In 1826 von Heyden proposed Spinturnix as a new genus in the 
Acarines, with type by original designation “ Acarus vespertilionis 
Scop. (non Lin.)”’, 1. e., vespertilionis Linn. of Scopoli as restricted 
to the acarines in 1763, not the hexapod vespertilionis Linn. as of 
Latr., 1796a, which under Art. 31, International Rules, isa dead name. 

Nycteribia vespertilionis remained with the insects for more than 
a century, but in 1902 Oudemans transferred Pediculus vespertilionis 
(namely the type species of Nycteribia) to Spinturnix (an acarine). 

4. Under a strict interpretation of the Rules as applied to the fore- 
going premises the insect genus Nycteribia is based on an erroneously 
determined species, since vespertilionis, a compound species of 1758, 
was definitely assigned to the Acarines in 1763. 

The question now arises whether Nycteribia should not be trans- 
ferred to the Acarines, since its type species (vespertilionis) is an 
Acarine, or whether Nycteribia should be left in the insects on the 
ground that Latreille’s specimens were insects. This brings up a con- 
troversial point which has produced great confusion in zoology and 
which is open to different interpretations. The most practical method 
of settling these cases is by Suspension of the Rules, the decision in 
each case being made upon the merits of the individual case. 


no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 31 


From 1796 down to date the specific name vespertilionis combined 
with Spinturnix, Nycteribia, and allied generic names presents such 
extreme confusion in synonymy that tables of subjective synonyms are 
difficult to understand. 

5. We have before us a practical problem to settle. If attempts be 
made to work this case out on theoretical grounds an agreement 1s 
hopeless. The only practical solution the Secretary sees is to settle the 
case under Suspension of the Rules, holding in mind the preservation 
of that portion of the nomenclature which is practically universally 
accepted and eliminating from all further consideration that portion 
which is hopelessly confused in subjective interpretations. 

The proof sheets of Mr. Collins’ study were laid before the Inter- 
national Commission in its meeting in Padua, and the Commission 
adopted the following in the minutes of its meeting for August 30, 
1630: 

The case of Nycteribia vs. Spinturnix was discussed on basis of galley proof 
by Collins (Washington) and the Secretary was instructed to prepare an 
Opinion in favor of Suspension of the Rules. 


In harmony with the foregoing instructions from the Commission 
the Secretary submits this Opinion and recommends the adoption of 
the Summary given above as the Opinion of the Commission. 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by eleven (11) Commissioners: Apstein, 
3ather, Cabrera, Chapman, Horvath, Ishikawa, K. Jordan, Silvestri, 
Stephenson, Stiles, Stone. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, seven (7) Commissioners: Bolivar, Handlirsch, DS: 
Jordan, Pellegrin, Richter, Stejneger, Warren. 


32 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


OPINION 129 
Bipinnaria 1835 vs. Luidia 1839 


SUMMARY.—The rules are herewith suspended in the case of Bipinnaria 
1835 vs. Luidia 1839, on the ground that “the strict application of the Régles 
will clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.” Luidia Forbes, 18309, 
with monotype fragilissima 1839 (subjective synonym of Luidia ciliaris 1837), 
is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic Names. The names Auricularia, 
Bipinnaria, Brachiolaria, and Pluteus are hereby excluded from availability as 
generic names and are reserved as designations of developmental stages. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—Mortensen submits his argument in “An- 
nals and Magazine of Natural History”, vol. 10, pp. 350-351, Oct. 
1932, and his presentation is herewith made a part of this Opinion. 

Discussion.—Article 37b, quoted by Dr. Mortensen, has an in- 
teresting history. 

The original draft of the International Rules provided an excep- 
tion to the Law of Priority for certain animals undergoing metamor- 
phoses and change of host, and this exception was included in the 
rules as adopted by the Moscow Congress in 1892. This same provi- 
sion was retained in the draft prepared for the Cambridge Congress in 
1897. In the 1901 Meeting in Berlin, Commissioners Blanchard and 
Stiles argued for the retention of this exception, but were overwhelm- 
ingly defeated in the final vote and they conceded the point for the 
sake of harmony. 

The parasitic worms, particularly Trematoda and Cestoda, were the 
first groups to accommodate themselves to the Berlin decision in so 
far as generic names are concerned; although many specific names 
are involved, fortunately few generic names come into consideration. 

The case of Bipinnaria vs. Luidia is the first one to come before 
the Commission for Opinion. The essential data, as made out by the 
Secretary on basis of Mortensen, 1932, and Sherborn’s /ndex are as 
follows: 


Bipinnaria Sars, 1835, Beskr. Bergenske, Kyst Dry, p. 37 monotype asterigera 
Sars, 1835, ibid., p. 37. 

Luidia Forbes, 1839, Mem. Wernerian Soc., no. 8, p. 123, monotype 
fragilissima Forbes, 1839, idem, p. 123. 

Bipinnaria asterigera has been identified as the larval stage of, and there- 
fore a subjective synonym of, Luidia sarst. 

Luidia fragilissima has been identified as a subjective synonym of Luidia 
ciliaris (Philippi, 1837, [Asterias]) Gray, 1840. p. 183. 


no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 33 

Accordingly, Luidia 1839 becomes a subjective synonym of Bipin- 
naria 1835 and the name of the larval stage becomes the name of the 
genus. Further, 

Luidia sarsi is an adult stage. Furthermore, Bipinnaria asterigera 
1835, the name of a larval stage, becomes the name of the species now 
known as Luidia sarsi, since the latter is a subjective synonym of the 
former. 

The effect is that a larval form (asterigera), in which various or- 
gans important for classification are not yet developed, becomes the 
type of a genus, in connection with which it is essential to know these 
undeveloped organs in order to determine the genus and to classify the 
species, and we have not even the benefit in this case of objective 
synonyms but only subjective synonyms. Accordingly, the case is 
much stronger than one would first assume from Dr. Mortensen’s 
presentation. 

Furthermore also, in the echinoderms are recognized various larval 
stages, Auricularia, Bipinnaria, Brachiolaria, Pluteus, the names of 
which have become current in general zoology and embryology. To 
grant to these names the availability as generic names is to assume the 
risk of confusion (to an extent which cannot possibly be foreseen) in 
the nomenclature of the echinoderms in systematic zoology and in 
geology as influenced by paleontology. Here again the case is much 
stronger than one might assume from a casual study of Dr. Morten- 
sen’s presentation. 

The Secretary recommends that the Commission adopt as its Opin- 
ion the Summary given above. 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Chapman, Fantham, Horvath, Ishikawa, Peters, K. Jordan, 
Richter, Silvestri, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, five (5) Commissioners: Bolivar, Cabrera, Handlirsch, 
Pellegrin, Stephenson. 


34 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


OPINION 130 


Lytoceras SUESS, 1865, PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL List OF GENERIC 
NAMES 


SUMMARY .—Under Suspension of the Rules Lytoceras Suess, 1865 (genotype, 
Ammonites fimbriatus Sowerby) is hereby placed in the Official List of Generic 
Names. 


STATEMENT OF CASE.—The following cases have been submitted by 
Dri spath: 


Ophiceras was proposed by E. Suess in June, 1865, (Anzeiger K. Akad. Wiss. 
Wien, p. 112) for the “ fimbriati” (i. e., group of Ammonites fimbriatus Sowerby ) 
but was afterwards thought to clash with Ophioceras Barrande (May 1865, in 
explanation to plates,—= Ophidioceras Barr., in text, 1867) and was replaced 
later in 1865 by Lytoceras Suess (Sitz. B. Akad. Wiss. Wien, vol. 52, p. 78). 
This last has ever since been in universal use. 

A second Ophiceras was proposed in 1880 (Griesbach, Rec. Geol. Surv. India, 
vol. 13, p. 109) for a Triassic group of ammonites, and ( Suess’ original Ophiceras 
being forgotten) it has now also become universally accepted. 

The resuscitation of the original Ophiceras according to the Rules of Nomen- 
clature would cause great paleontological confusion. Lytoceras and the family 
Lytoceratidae are now given in every textbook, Lytoceras being one of the two 
fundamental ammonite genera, persisting from the base of the Lias to the Upper 
Cretaceous. Ophiceras, also recorded in most textbooks, is Lower Triassic in 
age, so that from stratigraphical considerations, also, it would be advisable to 
secure stabilization of the present use of these two genera by the International 
Commission as follows: 

Genus Lytoceras Suess, 1865 (genotype: Ammonites fimbriatus Sowerby ; Min. 

Conchol., vol. 2, pl. 164, 1817). 
Genus Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880 (genotype: O. tibeticum Griesbach, 1880, 
p. 100, pl. 3, fig. 4). 


Discuss1on.—These cases were referred to Commissioner Bather 
for special study. He reported upon them as follows: 


I have gone into this case carefully and consider it to be eminently one 
where adherence to the rules would produce nothing but confusion. I therefore 
recommend as the Opinion of the Commission: That, to prevent confusion, the 
law of priority be suspended as regards Lytoceras Suess, 1865 (genotype, 
Ammonites fimbriatus Sowerby) and Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880 (genotype, 
O. tibeticum Griesbach) and that these two names be added to the Official List of 
Generic Names. 


The documents in question were then submitted to Dr. B. B. Wood- 
ward, and to the following Museums: United States National Mu- 
seum, Washington, D. C.; Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesell- 


no. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 35 


schaft, Frankfurt a.M.; Zoological Museum, Berlin, Germany ; Natu- 
ral History Museum, Vienna; Musée nationale d’Histoire naturelle, 
Paris; Zoological Museum, Copenhagen; Field Museum, Chicago, 
U.S. A.; American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 
U.S. A.; and to the United States Geological Survey. 

The experts consulted have reported as follows: 

Paul Bartsch of the United States National Museum: 


While I do not favor exceptions to the Law of Priority, this case appears 
to be one in which abiding by the rules would produce greater confusion than the 
suspending thereof. I therefore favor Doctor Bather’s opinion. 


W. C. Mendenhall, Geological Survey, Washington: 


The proposition now before the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature to suspend the Law of Priority in the case of two generic names 
of ammonites, Lytoceras and Ophiceras, has been considered by the paleontolo- 
gists of the Geological Survey now in Washington who are concerned with 
zoological names— 


C. Wythe Cooke, George H. Girty, W. C. Mansfield, J. B. Ree- 
side, Jr., P. V. Roundy, T. W. Stanton, and L. W. Stephenson state : 


That they concur in the recommendation of Dr. F. A. Bather that the two names 
Lytoceras Suess and Ophiceras Griesbach should be added to the list of “ nomina 
conservanda” under suspension of the Law of Priority. 

Edwin Kirk joins in this recommendation so far as Lytoceras is concerned 
but thinks that the retention of Griesbach’s Ophiceras would be unfortunate 
because Suess’ prior use of that name has been noted by Marshall in 1873 and 
by subsequent bibliographers. 


R. Sparck of the Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen : 


I absolutely recommend the proposition to suspend the Law of Priority in the 
case of the two above mentioned generic names. Dr. Ravn, Head of the Depart- 
ment of Paleontology, joins the recommendation so far as Lytoceras is concerned, 
but is of the opinion that the retention of Griesbach’s Ophiceras would be 
unfortunate. 


Rudolf Richter, Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, 


Frankfurt a.M.: 


Suspension der Regeln soll eine sehr seltene Ausnahme bleiben, weil die 
haufigere Anwendung dieses Rechtes zu schlimmen Folgen fur die Nomenklatur 
fuhren wurde. 

Im Falle von Lytoceras Suess und Ophiceras Griesbach ist aber Suspension 
das allein Richtige. 


B. B. Woodward, London: 


I am of opinion that Lytoceras should be placed with “ nomina conservanda ”, 
but that Ophiceras Griesbach, 1880, should not be accepted, Suess’ earlier name 
having passed into literature. 


‘ 


36 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


There is unanimity of opinion regarding Lytoceras among the ex- 
perts consulted, and an overwhelming affirmative majority in regard to 
Ophiceras. In view of the foregoing data the Secretary recommends 
the adoption of the Summary given above as the Opinion of the 
Commission. 

Opinion prepared by Bather and Stiles. 

Vote on Lytoceras: 

Opinion concurred in by thirteen (13) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Cabrera, Chapman, Horvath, Ishikawa, K. Jordan, Pellegrin, 
Richter, Silvestri, Stiles, Stone, Stephenson. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, six (6) Commissioners: Bolivar, Fantham, Handlirsch, 
Peters, Steyneger, Warren. 

Vote on Ophiceras: 

Opinion concurred in by ten (10) Commissioners: Apstein, Bather, 
Chapman, Horvath, Ishikawa, K. Jordan, Pellegrin, Richter, Stiles, 
Stephenson. 

Opinion dissented from by three (3) Commissioners: Cabrera, 
Silvestri, Stone. 

Not voting, six (6) Commissioners: Bolivar, Fantham, Hand- 
lirsch, Peters, Stejneger, Warren. 

Accordingly, Lytoceras is placed in the Official List of Generic 
Names and the case of Ophiceras is tabled until the next meeting of 
the Commission. 


NO. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 37 


OPINION 131 
THE TyPE SPECIES oF Tromikosoma MorTENSEN, 1903 
SUMMARY.—The type species of Tromikosoma is T. koehleri. 


PRESENTATION OF CASE.—Dr. Mortensen, of Copenhagen, has pre- 
sented the following case for Opinion: 


Pomel, in his paper “ Classification méthodique et Genera des Echinides vivants 
et fossiles”, 1883, p. 108, established a genus Echinosoma, citing the species 
Phormosoma uranus A. Agassiz and Phormosoma tenuis A. Agassiz as belonging 
to that genus without designating any of them as the genotype. 

In my work “ Echinoidea I. The Danish Ingolf Expedition”, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 62, 
1903, I adopted the said genus of Pomel, referring to it the same two species as 
did Pomel, but no genotype was designated. In this same work I established the 
genus Tromikosoma, with the single species Tromikosoma koehleri n. sp., which 
is accordingly the genotype of that genus. 

A. Agassiz and H. L. Clark, in their work “ Hawaiian and other Pacific 
Echini. The Echinothuridae” (Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., vol. 34, no. 3, p. 160, 
1909) designate Phormosoma tenwe A. Agassiz as the genotype of Echinosoma, 
which is made to include also my genus Tromikosoma—which I agree to be 
correct. 

The name Echinosoma, however, was preoccupied, no less than three times: by 
Audinet-Serville, 1839, for an earwig; by Wollaston, 1854, for a beetle; and by 
Semper, 1868, for a Holothurian. Accordingly, it cannot be used for the echinoids, 
and the name Tromikosoma must take its place. 

Which species is now to be the genotype of Tromikosoma, Phormosoma tenue 
A. Agassiz or Tromikosoma koehleri Mrtsn.? 

I would think the latter ought to remain the genotype of Tromikosoma also 
in its extended sense. But the matter does not seem to me quite clear, so it 
would seem better to have the Commission give its Opinion about the case, and 
to give it a more general form. I may then put the question thus: When an 
older genus proves to be a synonym of a later genus, which species is then to be 
regarded as the genotype, that of the older or that of the later genus? 


Discussion.—This case was submitted to the Commission in 
Circular Letter No. 252 for informal expression of Opinion and in- 
formal vote. As a result the following ten Commissioners registered 
their view that the species koehleri is the correct type: Apstein, 
Bather, Chapman, Fantham, K. Jordan, Peters, Richter, Silvestri, 
Stiles and Stone. The following two Commissioners view the species 
tenue as the type: Ishikawa and Pellegrin. 

The informal votes were accompanied by the following views: 





Chapman remarks: “ Tromikosoma koehlert is monotypic and founded by 
Mortensen in 1903. Therefore that species has priority [as genotype-C. W. S.] 
over tenue (Phormosoma) selected by Agassiz and Clark in 1909.” 


38 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 973 


Ishikawa remarks: “I consider the specific name tenue is to be used fur the 
species, even when the generic name was changed. The reason is the older name 
has the right of priority in the present case when the koehleri and tenue are 
used for one and the same species.” 

Kk. Jordan remarks: ‘“ Tromikosoma has absorbed an older generic concept 
which has no valid generic name. The genotype of Tromikosoma thus extended 
remains the same as before, T. kochleri. Tromikosoma was not proposed as a 
substitute for the preoccupied name Echinosoma.” 

Peters remarks: “ koehleri is the type of Tronukosoma by monotypy; it was 
not one of the originally included species of Echinosoma and is of course excluded 
from consideration in determining the type of the latter genus.” 

Richter remarks, “ koehleri ist der Typus von Tromikosoma Mortensen, 1903; 
tenue ist nicht der Typus von Tromikosoma Mort., 1903, sondern yon Echino- 
soma Pomel, 1833 ;—gleichgtltig, welches das Verhaltnis der Genus-Namen 
Tromikosoma und Echinosoma zu einander ist. Da die Gattung Tromikosoma 
Mortensen, 1903, bei ihrer Aufstellung monotypisch war, ist koehleri ihr Typus. 
Daran dndert sich nichts durch die Frage, ob der Name Tromikosoma (unaban- 
derlich mit dem Genitypus koehleri verbunden) an die Stelle eines anderen 
Gattung-Namens zu treten hat (z. B. an die Stelle von Echinosoma mit dem 
Genotypus tenue) oder nicht. In Ubereinstimmung mit meinem Kollegen Dr. 
R. Mertens.” 

Silvestri remarks: “because the genus author designated that newer and not 
another.” 

Stiles remarks: “ koehleri is the type species of Tromikosoma, and this point 
is not influenced by any restriction or by any broadening of the generic concept.” 

Stone remarks: ‘‘ When two genera are united, such action in no way affects 
the type of either. The broader genus thus formed will take the oldest available 
name based on any included species, as its name; and such name retains the 
type previously established as its type.” 


On basis of the foregoing informal vote and the arguments pre- 
sented, the Commission adopts as its Opinion the following: The type 
species of Tromikosoma is T. koehleri. 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by twelve (12) Commissioners: Apstein, 
Bather, Cabrera, Chapman, Esaki, Fantham, K. Jordan, Peters, 
Richter, Silvestri, Stiles, Stone. 

Opinion dissented from by two (2) Commissioners: Ishikawa, 
Pellegrin. 

Not voting, six (6) Commissioners: Boliver, Handlirsch, Horvath, 
Stejneger, Stephenson (successor Calman). 

Cabrera adds: 


This case is clear. Tromikosoma being a monotypic genus, its single species, 
koehleri, is the type without any shadow of doubt. The question if koehleri 
is or is not the same species as tenue, is quite a different point, and one to be 
discussed, not by the Nomenclature Commission, but by echinodermatologists. 





no. 8 OPINIONS I24 TO 133 39 


OPINION 132 
STATUS OF THE “‘ GATTUNGSBEZEICHNUNGEN ” OF SOBOLEW, IQI4 


SUMMARY.—The ‘“ Gattungsbezeichnungen ” published by Sobolew, 1914, 
are of the same nature as the designations published by Herrera; namely, 
formulae, not generic names, and have no status in Nomenclature. See 
Opinion 72. 


PRESENTATION OF THE CASE.—Prof. O. H. Schindewolf of the 
Preuss. Geolog. Landesanstalt, Berlin, Germany, presents the follow- 
ing case for Opinion : 


Die Nomenklaturkommission bitte ich ergebenst um einen Beschluss, der die 
rorq4 von D. Sobolew in seiner Publikation “ Skizsen sur Phylogenie der 
Goniatiten”’ (Mitt. d. Warschauer polytechn. Inst., Warschau, 1914) eingefiihrten 
sahlreichen neuen “ Gattungsbeseichnungen” fiir nomenklatorisch ungiiltig 
erklirt. 

Sobolew ist zwar Anhanger der binaren Nomenklatur, steht aber insofern 
nicht auf dem Boden der Nomenklaturregeln, als er alle friher gegebenen 
Gattungsnamen verwirft und durch “rationelle’’ Namen, d. h. Formeln fur 
Merkmalskombinationen, ersetzt. Zur Kennzeichnung seiner Methode zitiere ich 
-aus seiner Schrift die folgenden Satze (pp. 136-137) : 

“Statt der ‘Gattungs’-Namen werden Benennungen eingefuhrt, welche 
das Entwicklungsstadium der Sutur und die Gruppe und Reihe, zu denen die 
Kombination gehort, angeben. Das wird auf folgende Weise gemacht. 

Auf dem Simplicissimi-Stadium stehende Goniatiten werden 


Protomeroceras genannt 
Auf dem Simplices-Stadium stehende Goniatiten werden 

Monomeroceras genannt 
Auf dem Duplices-Stadium stehende Goniatiten werden 

Dimeroceras genannt 
Auf dem Multiplices-Stadium stehende Goniatiten werden 

Pliomeroceras genannt. 


Eine entsprechende Vorsilbe am Anfang jedes Namens wird die Gruppe 
anzeigen, zu der die Kombination gehort. Gomi-monomeroceras (= Tornoceras 
p. p. auct.) ; Goma-monomeroceras (= Tornoceras p. p. auct.) ; OQma-mono- 
meroceras (= Cheiloceras Frech+Prionoceras Hyatt+ ? Aganides P. Fischer). 
Auf dieselbe Weise kann am Duplices- (und Multiplices-) Stadium die isomere 
Reihe bezeichnet werden: a-Oma-dimeroceras (= Praeglyphioceras Wedek. + 
Glyphioceras p. p. Hyatt + Gastrioceras p. p. Hyatt); $8-Oma-dimeroceras 
(= Sporadoceras Hyatt); y-Oma-dimeroceras (= Dimeroceras Hyatt); £- 
Goma-dimeroceras (= Maeneceras Hyatt) ; a-Omi-dimeroceras (= Manticoceras 
p. p. auct., Crickites Wedek.) ; a-Gomi-dimeroceras (= Gephyroceras Hyatt. em. 


Holzapf.) ; y-Gomi-dimeroceras (= Tornoceras p. p. auct. + Posttornoceras 
Wedek.).” 





40 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


Es ist klar, dass alle die oben genannten neuen Namen ungiltig sind und in 
die Synonymik der in Klammern aufgefiihrten alten Gattungen fallen. Ich halte 
es indessen fiir empfehlenswert, die sdmtlichen von Sobolew eingeftihrten Namen 
als nomenklatorisch nicht existierend zu erklaren, da der Autor den Boden des 
Prioritatsprinzips verlassen hat und seine Bezeichnungen keine Gattungsnamen 
im Sinne der Nomenklaturregeln sind. Ein solcher Beschluss bringt den Vorteil, 
dass in Zukunft die Listen der Synonyma von den wertlosen Namen Sobolews 
entlastet werden und dass ferner langwierige Untersuchungen fortfallen, ob ftir 
eine spater als neu erkannte Gattung etwa einer von Sobolews Namen verftigbar 
ist. 


Discusst1on.—This case was submitted to the Commission in Circu- 
lar Letter No. 249. Reports from Commissioners were submitted in 
Circular Letter No. 292, No. 312, and No. 320. 

Jordan reports : 

Die von Sobolew veroffentlichten “ Namen” ftir Goniatiten sind durch 


Opinion 72 (Herrera) erledigt. Rhumbler legte ein ahnliches Verfahren der 
Sektion fiir Nomenklatur in Graz vor. 


Peters reports: 


‘ 


It seems to me that Sobolew’s “names” are not generic names in the sense 
of the spirit of the Rules. In my opinion they are practically formulae and as 
such have no standing or availability. I think they can be declared invalid on the 
basis of Opinion No. 72. 


Richter reports : 


Die von Sobolew eingefihrten Bezeichnungen sind keine Gattungsnamen, 
sondern Definitionen einer wissenschaftlichen Auffassung. Da sie somit dem 
Wechsel der Auffassung unterworfen sind, kommen sie fur die Nomenklatur 
nicht in Betracht. Vgl. auch Opinion 72. In Ubereinstimming mit Dr. Rob. 
Mertens. 


Stiles reports : 


On basis of the premises presented, I interpret these designations under 
Opinion 72. 


On basis of the premises presented by Professor Schindewolf, the 
Commission adopts the following Opinion: The Gattungsbezeich- 
nungen published by Sobolew, 1914, are of the same nature as the 
designations published by Herrera; namely, formulae, not generic 
names, and have no status in Nomenclature. See Opinion 72. 

Opinion concurred in by ten (10) Commissioners: Cabrera, Esaki, 
Fantham, K. Jordan, Peters, Richter, Silvestri, Stejneger, Stiles, 
Stone. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not yet voting, six (6) Commissioners: Apstein, Bolivar, Cal- 
man, Hemming, Horvath, Pellegrin. 





No. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 41 


OPINION 133 
Urothoe DANA AND PHOXOCEPHALIDAE SARS 


SUMMARY .—Under the Rules, the type of Urothoe is U. rostratus. The 
original author of a family name is free to select any contained genus as the 
nomenclatorial type of that family. It is not necessary to select the oldest 
included genus as type genus for the family. Under the present premises it is 
unnecessary to substitute the newer name Urothoidae 1932 for the earlier 
Phoxocephalidae. 


PRESENTATION OF CASE—Dr. Jean M. Pirlot of the University of 
Liéges requests an Opinion on certain points of nomenclature which 
he has raised on pages 61-62 in an article’ published in February 
1932, involving the generic name Urothoe Dana, 1852 and 1853, vs. 
Pontharpinia Stebbing, 1897, and the family name Phoxocephalidae 
vs. Urothoidae. 

Discuss1on.—1. Type of Urothoe. Dana (1852, p. 311°) in an 
extensive key summary, down to and including genera, describes 
Urothoe Dana, with generic diagnosis but without mention of any 
species. This appears to be the original publication of the generic 
name. 

The following year, Dana (1853, p. 921°) discusses Urothoe and 
cites two species (U. rostratus [which is given unconditionally] and 
U. irrostratus [which is clearly given sub judice *|). This is apparently 
the first allocation of any species to this genus. 

Under Article 30e8° of the Rules, U. irrostratus is excluded as 
type, and U. rostratus automatically becomes type regardless of the 
fact whether one dates the genus from 1852 or 1853. Compare Opin- 


* Les Amphipodes de l’Expedition du Siboga, deuxiéme partie. Les Amphipodes 
Gammarides: I. Les Amphipodes fouisseurs, Phoxocephalidae, Oedicerotidae. 
Leide. 

* On the classification of the Crustacea Choristopoda, Amer. Journ. Sci., ser. 2, 
vol. 14, no. 41, Sept. 

°U. S. Expl. Exped., vol. 13, pp. 920-923. 

*“The occurrence of the individuals of this species with the preceding leads 
us to suspect that the two may be male and female. Yet the great difference 
in the front is not like any sexual difference noticed; moreover, the superior 
antennae differ much.” 

°e, The following species are excluded from consideration in determining 
the types of genera. 

B. Species which were species inquirendae from the standpoint of the author 
at the time of its publication. 


42 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 


ions 35 and 46. For determination of this point it is not necessary 
to follow the literature further and the fact that U. irrostratus has been 
used as type by some authors is irrelevant as the case now stands. 

2. Family name. A complication has arisen because of the fact that 
U. irrostratus has been used as type * of Urothoe. 

Stebbing (1906, Das Tierreich, vol. 21, p. 131) retains U. irrostra- 
tus in Urothoe, family Haustoriidae, and classifies (idem., p. 146) 
U. rostratus in Pontharpinia Stebbing, 1897, mt. pinguis, family 
Phoxocephalidae. Thus a typical “ transfer case” is presented. 

Pirlot raises an important question in regard to Phoxocephalidae, 
namely : 

1. Must the oldest included generic name be taken as type for the 
family name? To this, the answer is in the negative. 

Article 4 of the Rules reads: ‘“ The name of a family is formed by 
adding the ending idae, the name of a subfamily by adding inae, to 
the stem of the name of its type genus.”’ 

This rule does not prescribe how the type genus of a family 1s to be 
selected ; and in the absence of restrictions covering this point it 1s to 
be assumed that, in accordance with custom, the original author is 
free to select as type genus any generic unit which he prefers. This 
is in harmony with the spirit of Article 30 which obviously leaves an 
original author of a genus entirely free to select as type species any 
species he wishes thus to designate. If the original author of a family 
(or of a genus) were compelled to select as type the oldest genus (or 
the oldest species) in the proposed family (or genus), this might 
confine his choice to a little known and very rare taxonomic unit— 
a restriction which would obviously be contrary to the interest both 
of taxonomy and of nomenclature. In this connection it is to be 
recalled that the ‘type ’’ selected is the nomenclatorial type as dis- 
tinguished from the assumed anatomical norm. 

Since (with the exception of isolated instances by early authors ) 
family names are based upon the name of the respective type genus, 
such family name constitutes, ipso facto, a definite designation of the 
type genus. For instance, Musca is definitely and unambiguously des- 
ignated generic type by the use of the family Muscidae, Homo of 
Hominidae, Ascaris of Ascaridae, etc. It would be a nomenclatorial 
reductio ad absurdum to consider any other genus as type of any of 
these families. The concepts of a given family are not identical as 
adopted by different authors and if the rule obtained that the oldest 


*Stebbing, 1891, on the genus Urothoe [etc.], Trans. Zool. Soc. London, 
vol. 13, no. I, p. 10: “ This, which has become the type species of this genus.” 


a lea 


No. 8 OPINIONS 124 TO 133 43 
genus must be the type genus of the family, the family name would be 
constantly subject to possible change according to the subjective ideas 
of authors from year to year; accordingly, even relatively stable 
nomenclature for family names would be hopeless, and synonymy in 
family names would be potentially indefinite and chaotic. 

Accordingly, if Urothoe, type rostratus, is classified in Phoxo- 
cephalidae Sars it is not necessary to change this earlier family name 
to the later Urothoidae 1932. 

In formulating this Opinion, the Commission has considered only 
the question of the formal application of the Rules and has not con- 
sidered the question whether it would be wise to “‘ Suspend the Rules ’ 
in this case. The data on which this latter question should be judged 
have not yet been placed before the Commission in sufficient detail. 

In view of the foregoing premises the Secretary recommends the 
adoption of the following as the Opinion of the Commission : 

Under the Rules, the type of Urothoe is U. rostratus. The original 
author of a family name is free to select any contained genus as the 
nomenclatorial type of that family. It is not necessary to select 
the oldest included genus as type genus for the family. Under the 
present premises it is unnecessary to substitute the newer name 
Urothoidae 1932 for the eariier Phoxocephalidae. 

One of the points involved in this Opinion was voted upon by the 
Commission in the meeting at Lisbon, when the following interpreta- 
tion was adopted: 


Article 4 of the Code, which relates to the naming of families and subfamilies, 
does not require that the oldest generic name in the family or subfamily concerned 
must be taken as the type genus of the family or subfamily. 


This point was concurred in by Commissioners Calman, Hemming, 
Jordan, Pellegrin, Peters, and Stejneger, and by the following alter- 
nates: Amaral vice Cabrera, Oshima vice Esaki, Chester Bradley vice 
Stone, Beier vice Handlirsch, Arndt vice Richter, Mortensen vice 
Apstein. 

Opinion prepared by Stiles. 

Opinion concurred in by seventeen (17) Commissioners (or alter- 
nates): Apstein (in part), Beier (in part), Cabrera, Calman, Chap- 
man, Esaki, Fantham, Hemming (in part), Jordan, Oshima (in part), 
Pellegrin (in part), Peters, Richter, Silvestri, Stejneger, Stiles, Stone. 

Opinion dissented from by no Commissioner. 

Not voting, two (2) Commissioners: Bolivar and Horvath. 


44 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL 75 


Apstein agrees in so far as concerns Urothoe but not in so far as it 
affects Phoxocephalidae. 
Stone adds: 


I concur in the Opinion that the first author to fix a type genus for a family 
is free to select any contained genus as the type, but in case the name then used 
for that genus is found to be untenable the family name changes in accordance 
with the change in the generic name. 

For example, the American Wood Warblers were named Sylvicolidae by Gray, 
based on the genus Sylvicola (type Parus americanus Linn.), but Sylvicola was 
found to be preoccupied in mollusks and as a substitute Compsothlypis was 
proposed, and the family name changes to Compsothlypidae. If this were not 
done we might have Sylvicola for mollusks and Sylvicolidae for Birds! 


Sylvestri states : 


I agree perfectly with the opinion of Commissioner Stone as expressed in 
the Circular Letter No. 333 (Series 1936). 











“t 















Tee a RUBE nvit ew RRM ER Fete SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LI 
ia i H a‘ ou 


a ee Mil (i 00UuNuitiy 


CS en Aner ae 39 88 01172 0638 





Ree 





Bet eepitny 
Bt 


UR 

te ate Te 

aE Pe 
Hin 












Cre rare 




















































































































Sut site vi 
ne fe catty 2 
belie ae E 
HB ne ; 
Rae br Bi 
Brit hs i by > 5 ‘ 
TTC AN fo dh iab| saben tea 
ia ity Let tt Hh 
aa ' i 2 ; t : 
Re Pt ap ‘ ; 
Boat oe 
y aN tN ; 
ety 
HMA 
Pp As 24 ; 
Ip Xx f 
Ich Punt ite a 
han Pe Reeth 
Pe Rite peta Rane 
Att dat { ns 
Lalit fete ae 
n bliin 
UL i ‘ 
ith Leh 
PoP 
ah f a 
"i 3 Pe eat he f 
ane ‘ 
UAT aN A } 
mi iri: 


Bra 
od 




















res 





sea 





fe 


Rr;